Facebook amplifying hate but not how you think

[Undertoad]

Always trying to see the bigger picture;

A friend of mine recently shared a video of a 12-year-old being terrifyingly racist. They did it to enjoy sharing their feeling of horror at the kid in the video.

but i noticed that it had 23000 views ~ and it wasn't the original video, it was a copy of the original, from an anti-hate organization

i wonder whether this type of sharing, sharing of hate in order to condemn it, is inadvertently spreading hate

or at least amping up the volume

23000 views of agreement, but in one sense it should not have been shared with anyone. it didn't deserve it and in olden days it would be shared with maybe 6 people

[Griff]

I don't think we have any idea what Facebook is doing to us...

A friend of a friend started this: https://www.facebook.com/decencyeveryday/

He isn't sure where its going but he took it into at least one school and talked to kids about how we talk to folks we disagree with.

[Squawk]

Making a minor famous for the wrong reasons is not going to do that kid any good either. Racism should be challenged, but not by making a public freak show out of a 12 year old.

[DanaC]

@UT:you know I think you may be right.


I think we get a little blase about stuff like that in the Cellar -because we aren't social media in the Fb/Twitter sense and our active core is relatively small compared to some of the bigger names out there, we share things here and it is a bit like bringing something up at work, or at the pub with mates.

When people are sharing things on Fb or Twitter it can reach a fuckton of people.

Originally Posted by Squawk

Making a minor famous for the wrong reasons is not going to do that kid any good either. Racism should be challenged, but not by making a public freak show out of a 12 year old.

Also a good point. Using a 12 year old as the new face of racism is completely unfair to that child.

[Undertoad]

Well that's what I actually brought up on the thread for it -- I said 12-year-olds aren't really fully developed, are often "playing" with ideas, and FB shaming might be damaging or dangerous --

-- the angry mob kinda turned on me ("Did you WATCH it??) and I had to apologize and high-tail it outta there.

[Happy Monkey]

Did you investigate how the original got posted?

[DanaC]

Somewhat sideways connection, but this thread put me in mind of Jon Ronson's investigation into online shaming.

[Undertoad]

No all I know is the original was from elsewhere and I didn't go very far with it

[fargon]

Where can I see the video you're talking about?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Always trying to see the bigger picture;

I would apply this to the pictures mocking Mrs. Trump shoes. If you think you're convincing a Trump supporter that he is impeachable by critiquing her shoes in the context of an enormous natural disaster check yourself.

[Flint]

There are a lot of "fight" videos going around, and worse. Violence, torture, death. But the descriptions of them always justify the violence.

Russian military strap a man to a pole and beat him with a rubber hose--but it's okay because he was a child molester. Actually he wasn't, he was a drug dealer, but people just go, "oh well, he deserved it anyway!"

Militarized African police torture a helpless victim, but again he's supposedly a "child molester" so okay, people believe that with no cited sources, and are "okay" with police torture. People are okay with militarized authority figures acting as judge, jury, and presumably executioner.

I guarantee you that there are member of the Cellar who would respond to what I'm saying by saying, "they're criminal, they deserve it!" What if they are simply political dissidents? What if the local sheriff's girlfriend left him, and he's torturing the guy he heard she's sleeping with?

My point is, these videos are normalizing violence, and glorifying government authority to act above legal norms.




So... the thing is. This is happening almost every day in America. Our cops have a "few bad apples" but the bad ones never get punished. People who protest an unjust system, get called terrorists. In the meantime, there are cameras EVERYWHERE, and there is overwhelming video evidence of an absolute epidemic of police brutality. And our leaders not only look the other way--they support the bad guys! Mind-numbing.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would apply this to the pictures mocking Mrs. Trump shoes. If you think you're convincing a Trump supporter that he is impeachable by critiquing her shoes in the context of an enormous natural disaster check yourself.

What? Who's thinking that?

Are you sure it isn't just laughing at someone walking into a disaster zone in stilletto heels?

I mean, Michelle Obama was criticized for wearing sleeveless dresses, and Hillary Clinton for wearing pantsuits. It's not just women, either - Al Gore was criticized for wearing earthtones, GW Bush for his flightsuit, and Cheney for his parka at Auschwitz.

I'd hope that stuff is confined to the Arts & Leisure sections on any actual news sites, but if any Trump supporter attributes any special meaning to the fact that Trump gets it too, they probably should check themselves.

Originally Posted by Flint

Mind-numbing.

With you 100%.

[Flint]

Mocking her shoes, his hair, etc. is problematic because there are so many legitimate issues, why go with a substanceless attack? If you didn't like Obama catching heat for wearing a tan suit, or eating Dijon mustard on his hamburger, don't do the same thing. Leave politics to people who have actual, deeply-held political opinions and let's have a marketplace of policy ideas that rewards demonstrable merit.

And, no, that doesn't mean we disregard our nation's history and traditions of expecting exemplary moral character and a steady hand, in performing the nation's arguably most important job, in terms of influence and example-setting.

[Griff]

Flint gets it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

Mocking her shoes, his hair, etc. is problematic because there are so many legitimate issues, why go with a substanceless attack?

I don't, in situations where substance is relevant. Though, to my shame, I vaguely remember saying something stupid about Gore's suits years ago, maybe on Slashdot.

But her shoes are, and his hair is, fair game in the "Funny political pictures" thread, for example. And while I didn't understand what the issue was with sleeveless dresses, so are they.

Heh, I just remembered another one - Bill Clinton was roasted for wearing a Timex Ironman Triathlon watch - the very model which I had at the time, and which I am wearing right now.

I'm not defending any news organization that covers her shoes outside of their fashion coverage, but people who post "Melania shoe memes" aren't using them as arguments for impeachment.