Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8330424" data-attributes="member: 6796468">The article itself reads as an attempt to create a scientific basis for the idea of virtue signaling. Which is itself a dog whistle and politically motivated piece of jargon intended to shut down any sort of response to impropriety.That's what they mean when they use this particular phrasing:Apply this same logic to any other form of society or situation thereof.Person A engages in an act that is counter to society's norms.Person B points out that that person has engaged in an act that is counter to society's norms.Society at large rebukes Person A while a handful of people, typically following a counter culture, defend Person A.The situation in reality is usually resolved in one of four ways:1) Person A faces civil or legal repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society.2) Person A faces social repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are not codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society but are widely regarded as wrong.3) Person B is rebuked for lying about Person A violating social norms triggering option one or two for themselves.4) Person B is rebuked because the social norm that they claimed has been broken does not exist, regardless of how much it should exist, thus triggering option one or two for themselves.That's it. That's society in a nutshell. Trying to pretend that it's something new and interesting and strange and different because it's online is just kind of weird to me? Particularly since they self-defined network harassment as a form of social shaming while acknowledging that harassment typically means something much more visceral or terrible. Such as sexual harassment, death threats, threats of physical violence, or stalking. They should have just called it social shaming instead of "network harassment"Giving it the name network harassment just seems needless. It's placing a higher or more drastic word to something that is not that difficult or extreme. It's an attempt to equate people facing very simple consequences for their statements and actions to the targeted harassment and pain that people do face through no fault of their own.In short an attempt to co-opt a serious problem and apply it to the wounded pride of individuals who in any other aspect of society face similar repercussions unless they were surrounded entirely by a subcultural bubble which adheres to their particular social norms that are different from societal social norms.</blockquote>

Verification