If the study was about just undergraduates accepted in public universities (I will assume public instead of private) then that would be the proper methodology for that select group. However, foldem was referring to the general population. So the study should be of a random selection of the general population in the US at the appropriate statistical sample size. And all the proper methodologies and statistics employed for this randomly selected group. Otherwise it would be comparing apples to oranges, a fundamental mistake.

It needs to be a very long study. Many tactics have dimishing returns and can flip from effective to counter producitve. Shaming is most likely an example of that.

It doesn't need a study, just look to see the tactics your opponents are happy to televise or try to arrange via covert operatives. There has been plenty of this on both sides and the echo chamber quickly divides for conquering. I think you all under estimate our mutual foe.

So the tactic is neutral, but the peeps who tend to use it you disagree ideologically with? Or, are the people you disagree with a bunch of terrible people, and they tend to use neutral tactics? No matter how you are slicing it, there's a buncha people you ideologically disagree with, but instead on engaging with this difference in ideology, you insist on fixating on their tactics, because you think they're terrible people? Even though you think the tactics are neutral. And... maybe, just maybe, you wanna helpfully point our that those other peeps are hurting their own cause, because you know better how to do their shiz than they do themselves. Wisdom you've gained by poking at your smart phone. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Feel free to correct me.

Moving right along, let's examine some of these campaigns that FoldnDark decries as immoral. Or perhaps more accurately, that FoldnDark decries as being waged by immoral people. A quick google comes up with this abstract: Shame campaigns and environmental justice: corporate shaming as activist strategy. Here's a little bit from the summary...

Hmm, let's dig a little deeper. What kind of despicable human beings are behind this "No Dirty Gold" shaming campaign? Well, luckily for us these reprobates have a website. From their "Campaign Allies" page...

ZOMG. That's gotta be the dregs of society, right there. Let's dig deeper still. How about this buncha scallywags going by the name "Oxfam". What do you think we'll find if we take a peek at their Wikipedia page...

Indeed.

Yeah, petitioning corporations, governments and so on isn't really the type of shaming that people relish doing so they can point and laugh at the witches, adulterers, communists bigots, and watch them burn.

You clearly don't understand the meanng of PC. Your example with Mel Gibson shows your ignorance. Why don't you think about this for a while and figure out your error.

I'll give you some time to fix your post and apolgize.

So?

This second buncha peeps aren't activists. Who cares what they relish?

How about you enlighten us all, professor.

How about you stop trolling this thread.

Tell me if you agree with this analysis. Many people in contemporary US society are shamed for doing or being things that are not bad at all. For example, some women are shamed for having an abortion, or getting divorced, or not looking/acting feminine enough. Some homosexuals are shamed for their sexual desires, for how they dress, or talk, or the friendships and romantic relationships they have. Some black people are shamed for how they talk, dress, the color of their skin, their level of intelligence, their entertainment activities, etc. Furthermore, this shame is at least partially the result of more politically and socially powerful and wealthy clusters of social groups who view their own way of life (i.e. culture) as the superior, best way of life and that the black, gay, female ways of life are in some way inferior.

If you think that analysis is correct, and if you think that shame/guilt is an inescapable aspect of social norms, wouldn't it seem reasonable to you to use shame against the same people who are using shame to impose their own social norms on other groups? In other words, if someone says something that, intentionally or not, causes other people to feel ashamed of being a woman, or black, or gay, etc. isn't it okay to use shame to incentivize that person to not say those things anymore?


I've only gone in Politics a few times, so no I don't really know the shaming norms there. As for shaming in the name of social justice, no I don't see that as being particularly outside of normal shame practices in the US. If you think so, it is probably just that you aren't adjusting for the fact that "social justice" views on race and sexuality are becoming more widely accepted now than in the past.

Two points. First, you confirm my point here. I'm not saying that you think all leftists are crazy SJWs. I'm saying that crazy SJWs aren't actually crazy leftists. That is, that you are collapsing SJWs or others who are ruder or more leftist than well named into the same category as leftist totalitarians. Attempts to categorize them as totalitarian leftists is absurd because that is a real thing (North Korea, Venezuela, Castro, etc) and not particularly what leftists who try to shame people into not shaming other people for being a member of some minority group are about.

Second, well named would probably make a lousy candidate (sorry WN!). Mostly what candidates for national office do is try to get their voters to the polls on election day. The messaging for this is some combination of inspiring supporters with some positive message of how you are going to change things, or scaring them about the dangers if the other guy gets into office. Calm, reasoned arguments are wonderful for discussion forums, but not very useful for either of those campaigning messages. In fact, they are mostly useful for getting endorsements and support from party leaders, activist groups, donor and business interests, etc. You'll notice that Hillary Clinton was much better at that part of campaigning than the speech-making part. This is because we did have a reasonable candidate like well named running for office - her name was Hillary Clinton.

I wasn't attempting to devise an actual experiment. I'm not a social scientist, I'm an engineer. I was trying to make a point. That point being...

We've heard this loltastical concern trolling crap like forever.

A buncha ignorant trolls holding forth over the interwebs. These folks have obvious disdain for all things they dub "social justice", even going so far as to call their trolling targets pejoratives like SJWers. LOLtastically they assure us that they're on the same side as those they name call SJWers. Often they'll denigrate those they name call as SJWers by pontificating crap like how they are "the real r-word-ers", etc. Universally, they'll concern troll. Those they name call SJWers are hurting their own causes. Those they name call SJWers are counterproductive. Those they name call SJWers should use the tactics these trolls endorse... because these ignorant interweb trolls know how to do this shiz better than the people that actually do it. Then things would be puppy dogs & rainbows. These trolls assure us their only concern is helping those misguided souls they name call SJWers better achieve their goals.

One of the lynch pins of this crapola is always this conceit that it's a complete mystery how to figure out if technique A actually works better than technique B out IRL. ZOMG, how could anyone possibly know? ZOMG.

My point is that it's not a mystery.

It's something the scientific method can be brought to bare upon. In fact, there's a whole industry founded upon this fact: advertising. Peeps pushing soap confront the same mysteries that peeps pushing what these trolls dub 'social justice' face. The peeps pushing soap don't throw up their hands with a "ZOMG it's a mystery, how can anyone know !?!?!", now do they ??

Because they probably outnumber activists 100-1, and due to their large numbers and need for acceptance, they probably outnumber the sincere activists at most rallies too.

It's the internet, dude. Haven't you noticed how easy it is to gather a protest together these days? You want a mob, I'll have you one by four. How large? They may be drunk aholes there to party and look cool, and you may have to remind them what's the cause today, but it feels good to get away from the keyboard and hold hands with another human.

That's what I think of the Occupy Wall Street "movement" anyway. I never heard a coherent message from them, and they just seemed silly out there camping in the middle of the city. I prefer float trips.

Again, so what?

People that don't do anything have always outnumbered activists by huge margins. But, as they don't do anything, again... who cares?

No. It's not easy. Are you not familiar with the real world? History, of course, says you are wrong.

Yep, the world is adjusting. There used to be an old saying, something like every letter received by a politician represents like 100 voters. Now they are flooded with twitter storms and they're adjusting (some faster than others) to the fact that each tweet represents only 1 person, who often won't even bother registering to vote.

Protests are being downgraded in the same way, Shamey.

And FWIW, I've been chatting with you for how many years now, and I guess I don't really know what sort of activism you promote. I thought it was social justice, and labor rights, but then the other day you said you support chattel slavery... FOR SHAME!!!1!

Yeah, I suppose so. Again, I guess it comes down to if the shaming is justified (which depends on perspective), and just how addictive shaming is on those who quickly and unthoughtfully use it... ie, there are people out there who simply just love to do it, I'm thinking of a certain evangelical Christian aunt of mine. She usually doesn't know wtf she's talking about, but just loves to smear on the sanctimonious shame. I see sooooo much of that on the social justice side these days, and I have the same reaction to it as I do to hypocritical evangelical douchebags, go suck an egg! So do most people, in my observation.

Perhaps they are in spite of all the noise, I'm a big proponent of the idea better arguments win out. If social justice views are becoming more accepted, it's because they are making more sense to the broader US. Best I think you could say for the unbearable "SJW" types who love doling out shame indiscriminately is they play a "bad" cop, to guys like WN's good cop. Worst case is they drive them to worshipping trolls like Milo Yabadabadoo and vote for idiots like Trump as way to give their collective big middle finger.

Well, I've made similar point that the crazies over in P like Fly are not liberal, but I don't really see how you wouldn't place them on the left. They sure hate them anything on the right. Call them what you want, but sure they're not Kim Jung Il and I wouldn't say that. A lot of the illiberal ideas they promote are of the same ilk, but calling them Maoists is akin to calling a crazy republican a Nazi. It's just hyperbole.

And to your point about Clinton, yeah, WN isn't a politician, and politicians have to play dirty, because we the people eat that **** up. I'm afraid that topic deserves a thread of it's own.

Isn't it each tweet represents 1/1000000th of a Russian spam bot?

Labor rights are not some distinct other category. Worker Rights == Environmental Justice == woman's rights == all the rest.

What you're confusing is IRL I'm a IWWer. Here in Los Dos Politardias I'm a Neo-Gorean. AFAIK Neo-Goreans, along with ISIS and US Libertarians, are the only tendencies championing chattel slavery.

Foldn, that's a weird narrative in this day and age of movements having very well defined principles, values and intentions. Kind of how the value of organizing became a key value to movements.

I disagree. Organizing has never been easier these days with the internet, Facebook, Twitter; and simultaneously, "well-defined" principles are much harder to nail down. Take #BlackLivesMatter.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/us/bla...-it/index.html
Shamey think's I'm "concern trolling." IDGAF what Shamey thinks, tbh, I'm just trying to argue on the internet and see if I can learn something.

Pretty sure BLM has a well-defined goal. Like, it's right there in the name.

Uh, history disagrees with your disagreement.



The peeps who name call other peeps things like SJWers, and then claim that these SJWers are hurting their own causes|counterproductive|the real whatevs|etcetc are concern trolling. That's what the term 'concern trolling' means.

I can't see inside your "secret inner heart" to determine if this what you really truly really believe =or= if you are just playing the devil's advocate role to see if you can learn something on the interwebs. Sorry about that. You, however, could clear up this mystery for us all.

Well, I am concerned. I'm concerned that this country is being lead by a huge manchild. I'm concerned internet anonymity and outrage is driving society off a ledge. I'm concerned I don't know what I should be concerned about. I'm concerned about learning stuff and hearing diverse opinions. Sometimes I'll troll, but usually only in response, Shamey.

The term 'concern trolling' doesn't mean a person who is concerned about shiz, who also happens to occasionally troll. You missed that point.

This is a very, very silly concern. Peeps spewing on the interwebs is the techno version of this...

If you say so.

You know I remember arguing with somebody in P a few years ago (I think Dids and Wookie) about how you can't just ignore what half the country thinks, like they're not wrong just because they're not on your team, and how the huge popularity of Fox News shows that maybe there are a lot of people on the right who disagree with you and you might ought to consider like trying to figure out why instead of making **** up about them. I got a lot of laughter from everyone about how Fox is nothing, just olds, they'll die out. Everyone gets their news from the internet today, young people, demographics and the the death of right wing mumbo jumbo, yada yada.

Welp, tons of right wing websites later, Brietbart, alt-right trolls, Milo et al, we have a repub majority congress and freak ass president, soon to be right leaning SCOTUS.

People talk about the "post-truth" politics that drove the Trump campaign. I think it's all just tribalism. The left in this country hates the right, and the right hates the left. Everyone is so angry.

You may think it's just clouds, nothing to be concerned about. I think the anonymity of twitter and forums like reddit, people who would never talk to each other IRL and the outrage that follows, Facebook with fake news stories nobody cares to vet, the ease with which people can join up with strangers into teams to troll and shame others they don't know or care to, and probably lots of things I haven't mentioned has played quite a role in turning out country from a place where we elected a gentleman like Obama into a circus where a side show clown wins the day. I suppose world events could have contributed as well.

I'm not just saying so to say so.

The conjecture is that trolls spewing anonymously on the interwebs have a significantly larger effect IRL than old men spewing at clouds. This is a claim about the real world... as such any answers will come from examining the real world. Well, how would somebody go about evaluating that claim?

As I mentioned above. Social scientists could bring the scientific method to bare upon the question. You know, experiments, controls, statistics, that kinda thingee. Other than that, we can use a little good'ol logic.

• Can we identify an underlying dynamic that generates significantly different IRL outcomes between (1) spewing on the interwebs, (2) spewing at the watercooler, (3) spewing using smoke signals, etc. If we can't, the whole conjecture is falsified. If we can, we would then need to show that these different outcomes align with the conjecture, instead of contradicting it.
  
  
• If there is a unique power generated by spewing on the interwebs, this wouldn't be limited to just the issues the peeps who call other peeps SJWers call "social justice". This power would work on anything... both as propaganda and as advertising. It would also be commercially exploitable, and highly profitable.
  
  If spewing vitriol works, why didn't the Evil Carpetbagging Spanos Family (ECSF) hire a room full of trolls to spew all over the interwebs, calling their stadium referendum the r-word, and themselves r-word-ers? Actually, a buncha activists from Barrio Logan were doing just that... but they weren't able to get their voices well heard. Why didn't the ECSF anonymously ship those activists a cool $1M or so?

Why doesn't Pepsi hire a buncha trolls to denigrate themselves. That's gotta hurt Coke... amirite ??

Well, water coolers arent anonymous, so I don't expect trolling to get too out of hand there. And you've clearly never read about the errant smoke signal controversy of El Gnomo that reportedly brought down the ancient Mayan civilization overnight, no trace but a few charcoal preserve LOLs.

Anyway, I'm just describing what I see, an advertisers point of view would be welcome.

True.

Do we have any research showing anonymous textual propaganda -vs- face-to-face propaganda produce significantly different outcomes? If so, does that research show that face-to-face is less effective than anonymous textual?

That's call anecdotal evidence.

Well, advertising is an industry, advertising has history, and advertising is studied academically. AFAIK nobody has openly or admittedly ran a self-denigration campaign. I'm going to WAG there has been zero published regarding the theory and practice of self-denigration campaigns. I have to imagine if we got a buncha professional Mad Man's together, and pitched a self-denigration campaign idea to them... they'd all fall down laughing.

I don't really follow the self-denigrating campaign twist, but I think it's clear trolling, internet outrage culture and the war between the social justice left and the alt-right has had a profound effect on our political discourse.

Just look at how Trump used twitter to sound off and then road the wave of outrage as the MSM clawed over itself for the clicks. He drowned out real news and all of his opponents this way without spending anything.

But as you probably know, the alt-right crowd were the troll masters, Milo, 4channers and so many others incessantly poked at the left in their safe spaces, trolling their silly microaggressions and found creative ways to "trigger" the likes of those who loved to be outraged like our friend Fly. Simply put they got played. Watch the last two seasons of Southpark for a hilariously sad synopsis of this.

No way to know the true effects of this twisted dynamic, but this author thinks the alt-right trolls may have swung the election:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/09/h...-election.html

Some snips, (emphasis mine)