Internet Outrage, Public Shaming, and the Modern-Day Pharisee Phenomenon

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

I think a couple of people have stated well the 'vigilante' aspect of this phenomenon - and I think that likening it to 'porn' as the original article does is thought provoking. I do agree that it's seeming to become addicting for some who disregard the other humans involved.
"Based on hundreds of comments and letters to the editor, Kreider says that many contemporary people feed off of feeling 1) right and 2) wronged. “Outrage Porn” resembles actual pornography in that it aims for a cheap, temporary thrill at the expense of another human being, but without any personal accountability or commitment to that human being. "
 
I guess if we define gossip as per this internet def'n - "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true" it could be considered gossip, and could easily move into the realm of slander. The things that bother me are the aggressive personal attacks based on assumption, and then the joining in by others on line - 'pig piling' as my kids used to call it. That gives it more of a vigilante feel to it, for me at least, and that's what's offensive.
 
To say that about every argument where somebody gets called out, delegitimizes some of the real reasons people do feel upset or frustrated with certain ignorances and privileges. I don’t criticize because I get a thrill, I do it because I stand by my deepest values. Tip toeing around priveleged people’s feelings is not one of my values, and i’m still working at living according to my values. I don’t know if I could’ve articulated that even ten years ago, but i’ve been through the ringer enough, seen enough life from close to the bottom, to not just be a sucker for it. I also had a couple of feisty mentors who impressed me, but first they hurt my polite sensibilities. And if we don’t identify problems we don’t solve them, and sometimes we have to argue to get it all out there in the open.
 
Last edited:
I guess if we define gossip as per this internet def'n - "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true" it could be considered gossip, and could easily move into the realm of slander. The things that bother me are the aggressive personal attacks based on assumption, and then the joining in by others on line - 'pig piling' as my kids used to call it. That gives it more of a vigilante feel to it, for me at least, and that's what's offensive.
Well, what about those who don’t serve lgbt people but don’t disclose their bigotry? Assumptions sometimes need to be made in order to root out the problem, if they’re being covert about it - say a bunch of lgbt couples had a similar experience and were told they were booked up. Or one person has had the same experience with them repeatedly? They can try to deny it and say “how dare you judge my intentions” even if it’s true. But it just, then, continues.
 
Is this sentiment in the article, coming from feeling guilty about privilege and being afraid to be judged? There’s a solution to that.

As far as I see it, not all public criticism is the same. Criticizing those disseminating lies and sexist, racist, ableist and homophobic ideas, or ideas that perpetuate injustice - is not the same as criticizing those fighting for justice. But the “Pharisees” are the ones who say it is the same. They say, “mind your manners” so it doesn’t bother privileged sensibilities. And once they say that - the subject is closed for discussion.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing honest feedback to a**hole politicians and sports personalities, whatever. As has been mentioned, that comes with the territory. I'm more concerned about people being taken down for eating meat or being against anything what you are for personally. People who have the colossal gall to gang up on someone and bully them. Wanna bet they could be in the hot seat themselves someday? Judge, jury and executioner.
 
No, this is specific blaming and shaming, particularly on the internet, for "bad" behaviour. I may be smirking behind my own mask at some of the medical exemption claims, but neither am I'm collaborating with someone else to shame that person.
 
Also too, there's the sheer cowardice of the abuse. Easy to vent your outrage when no one knows you or can see you.
The article also mentions that even if the target has done something shameful, that still doesn't mean it's fair to light into them. Our own moral compass should inform us that we can't know anyone well enough from an online encounter to attack someone like that. Might be a temporary lapse in judgment...oh wait, none of us has ever had that, eh?
 
And there are legit medical exemptions to masks (although I think face shields should be more widely available; they are partially helpful). Although asthma isn't actually a good one to claim, severe claustrophobia is.
 
Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing honest feedback to a**hole politicians and sports personalities, whatever. As has been mentioned, that comes with the territory. I'm more concerned about people being taken down for eating meat or being against anything what you are for personally. People who have the colossal gall to gang up on someone and bully them. Wanna bet they could be in the hot seat themselves someday? Judge, jury and executioner.

Maybe it's good to be judged sometimes. I think something I need to keep working at is to be confident enough to know when not to put up with it, and humble enough to know when to accept it. People probably couldn't evolve and thrive without those two things. Most of our social evolution hasn't taken place in court, and if it did, the judgment of attitudes and behaviours preceded it via protest - including plenty of protest against people who didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's good to be judged sometimes. I think something I need to keep working at is to be confident enough to know when not to put up with it, and humble enough to know when to accept it. People probably couldn't evolve and thrive without those two things. Most of our social evolution hasn't taken place in court, and if it did, the judgment of attitudes and behaviours preceded it via protest - including plenty of protest against people who didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
As mentioned, I'm referring to personal attacks against meat eaters etc. If you eat meat, you don't get to judge. Just an example.
 
As mentioned, I'm referring to personal attacks against meat eaters etc. If you eat meat, you don't get to judge. Just an example.
If someone criticized me for eating meat (I've had failed long attempts at being a vegan and a vegetarian), they can judge me online if they want. I think I probably deserve it because eating meat is gross and barbaric. It just tastes good when one forgets where it comes from. That's not a great excuse. If they yelled in my face in a restaurant that could be interpreted to be actually physically threatening, and it's not okay.
 
Hmmmm...but can they get at fussed at you for eating honey?

How about the new plant in Ontario making cricket protein?
 
If someone criticized me for eating meat (I've had failed long attempts at being a vegan and a vegetarian), they can judge me online if they want. I think I probably deserve it because eating meat is gross and barbaric. It just tastes good when one forgets where it comes from. That's not a great excuse. If they yelled in my face in a restaurant that could be interpreted to be actually physically threatening, and it's not okay.
...and you have identified some reasons not to eat meat, but dollars to donuts, you would not be actually motivated to stop being an omnivore because people are losing their s**t on you.
 
Back
Top