On the ethics of public shaming & digital mob justice

I wrote a post for the New Statesman on using public shaming and digital “mob justice” – even when aimed at those people we consider to be wrong. I’m unconvinced of public shaming as a tactic, in terms of “justice” – since one would hope that enforcing justice is itself considered in moral terms; that we don’t assume moral immunity because we’re responding to an injustice, but rather maintaining morality even while maintaining justice – in an unjust and often horrible world.

I don’t doubt public shaming is effective – but efficacy must be measured alongside other perhaps equally effective, but more moral responses and so on. My concern is that we can’t control how others respond and this is especially telling when original offences – say making a racist joke – is less bad than responses – calls for raping the offender.

There’s a lot to focus on, but this currently is my position regarding public shaming. It doesn’t mean we never act, only act better.

Responses to common claims made against childfree people

The Huffington Post helpfully aggregated some common assertions and questions people make against childfree people (in their case, it was women they focused on). Anyway, I wrote a response to each one on Big Think. I added some snark.

Let me know if they’re questions or assertions you’ve got. And, also, how often do you get them, in comparison to men/women companions/friends/lovers.

Update: Love the responses and comments. Please do keep them coming. Fascinating.

Is it ever right to target an individual?

I blogged a longish piece about the ethics of using your platform to target an individual, as we recently saw with Bill and Emma Keller targetting Lisa Adams; and, recently, Caleb Hannan “outing” Dr V for being born a different sex in a piece about golfing equipment. Not to mention how so many piled on Justine Sacco, Melissa Bachman, and so on. I really dislike how this occurs and wish platforms were recognised as unequal between people, especially in light of people’s identity (the internet is not, in fact, a fan of women or trans persons for example).

Suicide can be moral, but that’s no reason to egg people on

At the moment, in Cape Town, there’s a man threatening to jump to his death. Some are calling for him to jump.

I jotted down some thoughts about why suicide can be moral, but why that’s not the same as being part of a crowd yelling for him to leap to his death. And also oppose those who claim life is always worth living.

Golden Globes “Red Carpet” “reporting” makes me hate this species more

So there’s this thing called the Golden Globes, in which awards are given out to famous people for doing things for which they’re famous for: i.e. pretending to be other people on television. Famous people arrive, wearing clothes that cost an amount more than you or I will ever spend in several years, to an event to celebrate make-believe. An event where famous people sit for hours, listening to their colleagues name genres, then name names, then give awards – again and again and again – with shots of bored performers interspersed with laughter or smiles.

Of course, where there’s famous people, reporting – sorry “reporting” – is sure to follow.

Oh dear god no. Please, won’t someone do something!

Aside from dropping jewellery, famous people telling other famous people they had met before was also worthy of headlines.

Things got fantastically weird and idiotic – more so – when E! revealed it didn’t know how language worked – or perhaps did know, since anything they reported just was “fun”.

And if that wasn’t enough, they had a gritty sequel.

This was followed by “FUN FACT: WE ALL DIE ALONE”, “FUN FACT: CHILDREN DIE OF STARVATION WHILE OTHERS DIE FROM OVEREATING”, and “FUN FACT: EVERYTHING ENDS, ALL IS FORGOTTEN, EFFORT IS MEANINGLESS IN THE VOID OF NOTHING AND SUFFERING.”

The creepy obsession had a moment of self-realisation which was soon forgotten, as Gawker, who had been reporting on this non-event since it began Tweeted:

“We know this is a boring, stupid event, but we’re going to keep reporting on it anyway for your viewing pleasure because we need to meet the demands of our advertisers and viewership.” How cynical and insulting.

I love that we celebrate creative genius and brilliance; indeed, creativity is essential to any person, no doubt, each of whom likes a variety of creative mediums. TV is no different: Look how Breaking Bad worked Dostoevksyian magic and genius into itself and was the darling of TV critics; look how so many are enanmoured with BBC’s Sherlock with its wonderful plots and exquisite cinematography.

What I hate about celebrity culture is how we’ve turned celebration of the art into obsession of the performers. Yes, let’s award them as we do even for scientists. But, at the very least, can we question the purpose of the red carpet? Are we really reporting on famous people walking to an even more boring event? Are we really so cynical about what audiences do and should enjoy that we focus on what women are wearing rather than on how they did their art proud? Why do we celebrate or tolerate the creepy fawning and nitpicking and brazen abandonment of reason when it comes to celebrities? They’re walking down a carpet. Walking. Down. A carpet.

I’ve had enough of this and I hope more of you do too. Those sites whose Tweets I’ve captured have great content, but they morph into Mr Hydes of creepy stupidity and banality when awards happen. So do some people. We need to point out how stupid this is, because the performances and the art itself matter more. Let’s celebrate the art and artists for the actual wonder and joy they bring; not the dress they’re wearing or how much jewellery they’re dropping.

This list of how American conservative media treated women in 2013 is too long

Seriously.

Lou Dobbs described a Pew Research study that found an increase in female breadwinners as full of “concerning and troubling statistics.” Dobbs said the study was suggestive of “society dissolv[ing] around us.”

On the June 20 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, frequent Fox guest and conservative radio host Bill Cunningham shouted down Fox contributor Tamara Holder during a debate saying, “You shut up. Know your role and shut your mouth” and asking if she was “going to cry”

On the November 18 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co, host Stuart Varney wondered, “Is there something about the female brain that is a deterrent for getting on board with tech?”

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh offered his “suggestion” to avoid being accused of sexual harassment: “You walk up to the woman and say, ‘Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?'”

WSJ‘s Taranto Says Of Alleged Domestic Assault: George Zimmerman Simply “Guilty Of Being Male.” After George Zimmerman allegedly threatened his estranged wife with violence, James Taranto tweeted that Zimmerman was “guilty of being male”:

And so on and so on. Horrible.

Thanks to the researchers Emily Arrowood, Olivia Kittel, Olivia Marshall, & Samantha Wyatt at MediaMatters.

GTA V won’t make you kill sex workers

In a recent piece, Cassie Rodenberg wrote on Grand Theft Auto V by Rockstar Games, low income areas and sex worker violence. Rodenberg, who writes the White Noise blog for Scientific American, could rightfully be expected to provide actual evidence, data and careful linking for her claims. This is particularly so because claims of GTA and violence, as well as sex worker rights and security, are both sensitive topics (not equally, certainly); knee-jerk reactions from all sides probably mean no one will listen, especially if you’re not careful in your portrayal and writing.

Unfortunately, Rodenberg is neither careful nor clear. Instead, Rodenberg relies on a sad retelling of one sex worker’s OD and makes many dramatic points about how GTA sex workers are treated the same way as… real sex workers? About children not caring about education or life because they want to play video games?

The piece is both unclear and dramatic. I left a long comment, but in order for it to make complete sense, you of course should read the piece.

I do worry about commenting or even making blogposts when people are “piling on”; you wonder whether you’d actually add anything useful to a discussion comprised of noise.

However, I think that amidst the shouting from the usual angry gamer crowd, I’d like to indicate that I do have genuine concerns about GTA myself, as someone who dislikes sexism – which is something I hated about this game – and is concerned about safety and security of sex workers. Similarly, Ms Rodenberg doesn’t appear to be facing the same kind of animosity and threats as Ms Baxter did (I don’t wish to convey I’m umsympathetic to horrible messages she is receiving). Similarly, Ms Baxter’s piece was a lot more personal in its criticism for a cause that was pretty embarrassing afterward for her.

Anyway, this is an edited version of my comment:

—

Much assertion and hints at causal relations, but with no actual evidence provided by Ms Rodenberg in this piece. This is worrying, since as someone who both cares for sex worker safety and the art of video games, I don’t want to be encouraging activity that harms.

Unfortunately, this piece does little except construct the game in a scary way; one I – and no doubt many other gamers – never saw.

“This [killing sex workers] is all possible, even encouraged by tips on YouTube and chatrooms, in Grand Theft Auto V. In fact, your character’s health (aka life points) goes up when you have sex with a prostitute.”

A claim that’s been attached to GTA for too long: “there’s points for killing sex workers”. I see it’s amended to say “life points” but no one thinks or calls it that in this game. It’s just “health”.

I must also point out you’re actually showing sex work to be a good thing, if your character heals (another thing I don’t remember happening).

Second, what do you mean by “encouraged”? All that YouTube video you link to shows is where to locate sex workers, which is no different to videos about how to kill the most people in GTA, blow up the most things in GTA, etc. The only kind of “encouragement” is to play the game as fully as possible. Nothing significant is gained by even engaging with sex workers in GTA. I think I did it once in the game, but it’s actually rather boring.

“In the first 24 hours alone, the game sold 11m copies. That’s 11m pixelated ghettos.”

I don’t understand this part. First, so what? Second, one character lives in a mansion in an upper-class neighbourhood. Another one moves into same area later. Presumably, you mean the whole game is a ghetto? The map? I don’t get this.

“They play at night instead of doing their homework. It’s cool to pick up prostitutes.”

There’s many things students would rather do than their homework. That’s about as much GTA’s fault as Cartoon Network; more so, it’s parents’ responsibility to monitor their child’s education – not Rockstar Games.

“This is how you learn to “be a man”.

According to who? I would be interested in how you’re acquiring your data and also if you know what the average age is of those playing GTA 5. Even the Daily Mail shows estimates that it’s usually adults (with a few kids) who are playing (not just buying).

“And while those students play their game, in their neighborhood, perhaps under their window, real prostitutes walk.”

Yes, but there’s also presumably actual violence, murder, assault. Sex workers can walk where they want.

“Millie was one of them, a woman who worked in South Bronx, who walked the streets. She stood on the track, a simulacrum of game pixels. “

I see you’re trying to make it related to a gaming world, but I’m not seeing how other than your assertion of simulacrum of game pixels. Which doesn’t make that much sense – most of us know what’s real, what’s a game, what’s a film.

“She’s dead now, dead like the on-screen women that are fun to kill.”

No, she’s not dead “like the on-screen women”. That seems insulting to this late woman: a once living, breathing, actual human being with loved ones. Pixellated characters don’t have those human qualities; it seems the writer is the one unable to distinguish between reality and the game by making this rather crude comparison.

“There, game and real women split.”

I don’t know what you mean by this.

“These teenagers have the power to reign over those whores. Game and real women merge.”

Assertion, assertion. No evidence or causal link provided. What is the link between one of GTA’s minor activities and the horrible deaths of sex workers? What is the link to the mostly male gamers living around the sex workers and their mistreatment? Millie died because of a complications related to addiction – what is that relation to schoolkids playing GTA V?

“What they see dictates that they should mock the women outside their windows, mothers and sisters and neighbors. They should harden and laugh like the rest of the world who thoughtlessly screw, dump and kill the bitches in ghettos, things that no longer seem real to them.”

I wish this had been your focus. The game is incredibly misogynistic, in its portrayal of women as either shrieking whiners or damsels in distress. There is no depth to them. This, to me, is more worrying than a minor activity: this is more worrying since it’s emblematic of how many women are treated and how many men view them.

GTA’s awful decision to have three males – when it could’ve included one, just ONE, female lead – is further evidence of this. We know Rockstar are incredible story-tellers and character designers: I would’ve loved to have seen a complicated, fascinating woman character lead. They can do it. They didn’t.

That’s of more concern than assertions of blurring realities: Women really are treated this way, the game is evidence of that. There’s no blurring there.

“But [Millie’s children] can reach one memory of [Millie] on screen, hear her say, “hey, baby,” watch men shove her down.”

Seems a rather insensitive thing to say: again, equating a real-life person with an anonymous collection of pixels is quite insulting. Indeed, how do you know what her children will think of her? If I was one of her children, I would be quite insulted by that last assertion.

Before commenting, please note my comment policy

Follow me on Twitter

 

Should we stop supporting lostprophets, on streaming services, because of Ian Watkins?

The Welsh band, lostprophets, have essentially disbanded, after lead singer Ian Watkins was found guilty of horrible crimes against children. I stopped listening many years ago, thankfully, but I can imagine my first instinct would be to delete all their albums, destroy their CDs and remove any posters or paraphernalia. People have, obviously, also wondered (or screamed) about stores and streaming music services continuing to host lostprophets.

BBC Wales Arts and Media Correspondent Huw Thomas Tweeted about the music streaming service, Spotify.:

When asked if there’s a precedent for this, Thomas replied:

Major retailer HMV appeared to be one of the few he knew about that had removed the band:

(I can’t tell if lostprophets is still being hosted, as I have no access to Spotify due to living in the Dark Ages, according to the Internet.)

Assuming the band is still being hosted, that the other band members’ knew nothing about Watkins’ crimes, and services like Spotify do provide money to artists/performers, is it right for us to ask for the band’s removal from services providing them (both) with an income?

My first thought is that Watkins’ crimes don’t need to hurt more people; in this case, it would be the other band members who appear innocent. Often in our haste, fuelled by anger, we forget that punishment aimed at the offending individual can sometimes, inadvertently, hurt innocents related to that person.

Justice is meaningless if punishment is only a synonym for revenge. No, we’re not courts or police or whatever: but we too can and do punish (witness the rage and the events of the Justine Sacco incident). So the point is to target the wrong-doer and undermine punishment for those closely related.

Of course, one can say that it’s bigger than band members incomes. These gentlemen aren’t,  as far i know, struggling for money, nor are they completely reliant on streaming music services. Thus, by removing lostprophets, Spotify can show support for abused people by saying “we care more about solidarity with your safety and sense of injustice than [say] making money”.  Better yet, lostprophets could themselves withdraw.

But why only Spotify? Should the band members cease all touring, should hosts cancel the performances? Perhaps there’s less at stake with concerts, since most don’t care who host those concerts – since it’s about the band rather than the organisers. Spotify however has its name everywhere, so you can associate that brand directly with the current awful cloud around lostprophets.

Of course, the band has essentially broken up due to Watkins’ horrid crimes. But there are issues that arise if the other, innocent band members were entirely dependent on the band and income from sales.

In many cases, of course, the point is that I can buy all the albums and just destroy them and they’ll still make something; but what about tours, future listeners, and so on, that generates more and new income? This seems little different to instances to any organisation is brought into the spotlight not for the efficiency of what they do, but because of the horrible crime of one or two members. Investors pull out, clients drop them and so on.

There’s no hard and fast solution; it requires case-by-case analysis but, in response, we must remember not to punish too far and too wide off the mark of who deserves punishment (and even then we must decide what that punishment looks like). If I were a fan, I’d probably no longer be – but I would be hesitant since, if everyone did so, it could unnecessarily harm innocent people who just happened to be making money the same way as Watkins.

Before commenting, please note my comment policy

Follow me on Twitter

Wrong (or right) is a conclusion – not judgement

A commenter indicated, in a post on my comment policy, that “having a comment policy is wrong.”

That was the end of the statement.

This touches on something broader: Right and wrong are conclusions, not the beginnings of a judgement.

When people declare something is wrong – or, worse, is just wrong – we have a duty to ask why: What are the reasons that led to that conclusion? If none can be provided, what reason do we – or indeed the person making the claim – have for taking that conclusion seriously?

People forget this about the terms right and wrong, equating it with things like disgust or attraction. Of course, I’m focused here on right and wrong used in a more moral sense, rather than, say, mathematical or artistic (“That music feels right“).

“Homosexuality  is wrong” invariably for many translates into “Homosexuals makes me feel icky”. The first can be interrogated, debated, criticised. The second cannot. That people really are disgusted by gay people is a fact, not a moral discussion or argument. It’s no different than saying “I like Pink Floyd”. Of course, unlike being a Pink Floyd fan, disgust of gays translates into more harm – especially when people want government to be their feelings police, making sure other people don’t offend these disgusted people.

Interestingly, both feed each other but can be separate. I find the concept of incest a bit unnerving, but I still defend the right of two consenting adult twins to engage in a sexual, romantic relationship with each other. My disgust shouldn’t be a deciding factor in how others should live, in most cases. But, of course, one’s digust can fuel engagement with the topic. For example, my intense disgust for the American prison system and capital punishment is a big drive in my writing on capital punishment. The same is no doubt true for all of us and the things we engage in.

The point is, however, that we must treat these concepts of right and wrong in the… well, right way. Right and wrong must be treated as conclusions, otherwise it makes no sense; if they’re not conclusions, then they are probably aesthetic judgement. If you think merely asserting right and wrong makes it so, then that’s probably bigotry.

(Also, if someone asks you why something is wrong, try not to tell them to read x, watch y, etc. Sure, certain topics might require more in depth engagement. But if you can’t at least summarise your reasoning, then – yet again – no one has to take you seriously just because you declare it so.)

Before commenting, please note my comment policy

Follow me on Twitter