The (New) Court of Public Opinion

[ncordless]

What is private is that which has been kept from the public.

To complain about your lack of privacy is to complain about the sunshine when you fail to stand in the shade.

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

It's not illegal. And the government has taken no action against him. Of course, there is no law which requires me to not judge someone a racist for the things they say in public or private.

You want a society where people will persecute someone for holding an opinion which is verboten? You want to live with villagers with pitchforks?
This is progress?

 

[OldGoat]

The old court seemed more local but that's another example of where people want the benefits of the technology without the other side.

The old court was local because the old society was local. Without the radio, tv, cell phone, automobile,, train and plane, the society that you influenced, and thus the society that judged you, could only be local.

Now, we're sitting on a message board engaged in an international society. There should be no surprise that the scale of responses are also international.

The Hulkster took advantage of tv, ppv, movies, etc. to make his society international. He spent money trying to make his daughter have an influence on the entire nation. So, when the national or international society that he spent his entire life courting rejects something he's said or done - he's the last person who should be surprised.

The 2nd to last should be the people engaged in international discussions about Hulk Hogan. People who watched his matches anywhere but live. People who watched his movies from the comfort of their homes and not live on stage. People who helped him become an international brand. Those people can't complain that the court of public opinion is suddenly an inappropriate venue for someone like the Hulkster. It was appropriate when it made him famous.

I'm curious how people view what they're doing on Sherdog and WR if not sitting as jurors in the court of public opinion?

There is no consistency nor logic to this so-called judgement. It's a pack of howling retards throwing dung. And I don't care if people say a taboo word in private or public really. I do care that harmless actions in private are used to ruin people. It would be good if private sex tapes are leaked of some of these SJW and let them get a taste of the same mob fecal matter.

 

[Sabin]

You just don't get the specter of ubiquitous surveillance. We are treading into thought crime territory with some of this stuff. Imagine if someone put a hidden camera in your bedroom.

Are you 100% comfortable with what you say or do with your wife or your own self in private being made public? Should everyone live in fear of a leaked tape? Counter surveillance for celebrities might be the next big industry.

This isn't about the social norms of being polite at dinner or be judged a jackass. This is about losing your career for telling a Polish joke in your den. And what's vastly worse is the selective outrage. Jesse Jackson on a live mic said heinous things about president Obama. Yet that shyster still is in his shakedown business.

That's right, the fears of the novel 1984 being realized right now. We are the transitional generation, the experiment, what is at the core of human nature and the record of one's entire life history and for random people who don't know you from Adam to be able potentially to selectively judge you on the worst parts of it.

I'm still not used to it, but I guess I have to now live assuming that if everything could possibly be recorded and very easily and cheaply, then I have to live my whole life with that assumption in the back of my mind. Is this guy really a close friend, what if we have a falling out. What if I break up with this girl, will she post my comment about blah, blah, blah on Youtube? I find it disturbing. With Hogan we're not even talking about an actual crime. So what, only sanitized 100% PC correct statements anywhere a microphone or camera could be present? That's just about everywhere...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The first indication of the new high tech interface with this that I can think of, being the SONY CEO losing her job... over private emails... from years ago. The implication of just what happened then is a potentially bad omen for another thread probably. But, you had a foreign government, in this case a regime that is the epitome of the evil of unchecked power, imposing censorship on the US from across the globe and getting one of our CEO's fired. National fucking sovereignty, threatened by the new power and scope of high technology. This is new stuff here and a scope that is typically huge and that can oftentimes impact millions of people at a time. Some serious food for thought about the state of the future and high technology.

You mean this? http://nypost.com/2014/12/30/new-evidence-sony-hack-was-inside-job-cyber-experts/

US cybersecurity experts say they have solid evidence that a former employee helped hack Sony Pictures Entertainment

 

[ncordless]

So, you would say that if you were around before the civil rights movement, you would have told the blacks sitting on the back of the bus and having separate water fountains is not so bad, there used to be slavery?

When within the last 100 years were you getting lynched?
By the KKK?
By Hoover if you had communist friends (not lynching just being black balled from hollywood)?

So you are cool to going back to this era? An era of being persecuted for certain beliefs because a bunch of losers on social media yell and harass until they get their way?

To people like that I say
"Round and round, what comes around goes around, I'll tell you why" - Ratt.

No. Your comparison fails because the court of public opinion is not a bad thing.

I just point out that, where it used to result in instances of lawlessness, today instead of lynching an abolitionist and literally killing him for promoting equality of the races, today we do nothing more than judge people by what they say and the consequences flow not from an execution of this judgment but rather from the democratic will of the majority which guides us as a nation in both our economics and our social mores as well as our political decision making.

Now, I will also say that the tyranny of the majority is a dangerous (if not the most dangerous) form of tyranny. However, again we are not talking about political majorities punishing others through violence but rather societies deciding what it considers right and wrong.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's shrunk the distance only after artificially extending it. Prior to the automobile, people didn't have the same amount of space between them as they do now. That had the effect of making people feel as if they had more privacy than the previous generations. Technology is now restoring the balance that it upset in the first place.

And its restoring it in a bad way which is the point. The fact that one might have to 2nd guess what they say in private, with friends who better understand your words because of your shared history, is troubling. Are you saying going back to Salem witch hunts is alright?

No, I think there's never been a difference between public and private except for in the context of legal definitions for government purposes. I think we've taken what was a primarily legal construct and are treating it like it's a real thing. We're playing make believe.

Most human ideas are make believe, the only difference is the utility of the make believe ideas and systems. To separate a public sphere, where a certain level of decorum is enforced, and a private one, where friends and family can discuss freely, allows us to engage with those close to us in a more personal genuine matter while still keeping a civil public discourse.

Eroding this puts people's livelihood's at risk because the internet may have recorded them at their worst and that's what a lot of this boils down to; being able to judge people at their worst and not even necessarily for something they did recently. With the Hogan thing we're talking about going into a person's sex life 8 years ago, that's an intrusion I'm not comfortable with.

Across the country may be new but that's only because it used to be across the village. That's what I'm driving at. Go to some of those 18th century historical villages, there was no "privacy" in the sense that we're discussing it now. Everything was essentially public. If you raised your voice, the entire village knew when and why and judged you accordingly. It's only in last 100 or so years, that this modern idea of privacy, where no one knows anything about you, has seemed to take root.

Now, you can be judged by people halfway across the country and your neighbor still have no idea what you did if they're not on the right websites. It used to be, your neighbor knew what you did and the guy halfway across the country didn't. SSDD.

The fact that someone across the country can harass you is significant though because like I said earlier its expanded the mob to unprecedented levels. Look at all the shit the dentist who shot Cecil is getting. He had to close his practice and he's getting threats of violence. Sure that was possible before but that doesn't make it right and the fact that people from the entire country can now join in on the with hunt makes it particularly worrisome.

 

[mtron929]

I agree with you that many people might not like answering your question.

The reason isn't that complicated so I'm going to be a bit brusque, I apologize if it's offensive. Again, using racism as the foil.

The simple truth is that there are many people who say publicly that racism isn't real or that it doesn't matter or some other minimizing comment. However, in private, they express opinions or think thoughts that the general public would construe as racist.

For those people, they have to create a wall where they can justify privately racist opinions yet not feel hypocritical when they minimize racism or it's impact at the public level. The only way they do this is by claiming that their private thoughts and opinions are not reflective of who they are. Psychologically, that's unlikely. Our private thoughts are a better reflection of our personalities that our public persona. But acknowledging that while holding socially undesirable opinions, means that a person might have to view themselves as a problematic part of society.

No one wants to see themselves as part of the problem so they attempt to dissociate their private opinions from public society. We used racism but it's applicable to pretty much any position - from women's role in society to how we feel about fat people. No one wants to see themselves as the "bad guy". So they parrot socially acceptable responses to maintain social approval while pretending that their privately socially unacceptable responses don't matter. It's basic cognitive dissonance.

Well, I agree with what you are saying but this also applies to people who voices opinions against racism or sexism. And I think that is the more interesting angle here. That is, I would not be surprised if there are many people who simultaneously publicly criticize Hulk Hogan for being a racist but also hold racist opinions of their own. In fact, I would not be surprised if 90+% of the population think at least one racist thought a month. Obviously, racists would think racist thoughts constantly but people who fight against racism will also have racist thoughts once in a while.

My hypothetical situation is targeted towards the latter. That is, these people would feel uncomfortable thinking that if thoughts were public information, they would be revealed of having contradictory viewpoints (fight against racism + think racist thoughts). Thus, they would have to acknowledge the difference between thinking something versus saying something.

 

[ncordless]

You want a society where people will persecute someone for holding an opinion which is verboten? You want to live with villagers with pitchforks?
This is progress?

I explained above that I do not believe mob violence to suppress disfavored speech is no more okay than the political majority using violence to do so.

But your hyperbole goes a step too far. There is no violence. Just a competition of viewpoints, with those that hold the losing viewpoints instead of changing their minds once the right answer has been shown suffering the consequences of losing in the marketplace of ideas.


So tell me of your alternative. What should we do to make sure that, when someone says something stupid in public, he suffers no ill consequences for it?

 

[panamaican]

There is no consistency nor logic to this so-called judgement. It's a pack of howling retards throwing dung. And I don't care if people say a taboo word in private or public really. I do care that harmless actions in private are used to ruin people. It would be good if private sex tapes are leaked of some of these SJW and let them get a taste of the same mob fecal matter.

As I said previously, your issue is that the court of public opinion reached a conclusion that you didn't like.

That they didn't take seriously the issues that you took seriously and they took seriously the issues you don't.

But rather than realize that it means that you're out of sync with modern society, you've decided that a human dynamic as old as mankind itself is now, suddenly, flawed?

 

[ncordless]

You mean this? http://nypost.com/2014/12/30/new-evidence-sony-hack-was-inside-job-cyber-experts/





Maybe it's just me, but my brain thinks all sorts of shit that I don't necessarily advocate or stand behind. Sometimes I'm weighing options. Sometimes it's what I'd perceive others to say or society to extol or condemn. Maybe even at times wrestling with the way I was raised. I can't always control what's going to pop in there. You ever get a song stuck in your head that you didn't really like?

And that's why the best censor of your speech is you. You get to decide what comes out. And you are responsible for what comes out.

 

[panamaican]

Maybe it's just me, but my brain thinks all sorts of shit that I don't necessarily advocate or stand behind. Sometimes I'm weighing options. Sometimes it's what I'd perceive others to say or society to extol or condemn. Maybe even at times wrestling with the way I was raised. I can't always control what's going to pop in there. You ever get a song stuck in your head that you didn't really like?

Yeah, I guess I'm drawing a difference between things we're still trying to figure out and things where we've reached a conclusion. Like, I've reached a conclusion on prime Kim K. but I'm still working out how I feel about prime Kylie Jenner. :icon_chee

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're still missing my point. I'm not judging the right or wrong of how the public learned what it learned. I'm saying that once the public learns, it will respond. Demanding otherwise isn't viable.

But this is what many are taking issue with. The how; in this case, a freaking camera in the bedroom.The fact that something as intimate as sex(or in this case adultery) from 8 years ago can be brought to light is troubling to some like myself. Of course people are going to judge you from what they know but I'd rather live in a society where they're not privy to the intimate details of your life.

Now of course you make a good point that Hogan is a public figure so that's important to keep in mind but the bedroom is still a pretty intimate place for the public to stick their noses in.

 

[ncordless]

There is no consistency nor logic to this so-called judgement. It's a pack of howling retards throwing dung. And I don't care if people say a taboo word in private or public really. I do care that harmless actions in private are used to ruin people. It would be good if private sex tapes are leaked of some of these SJW and let them get a taste of the same mob fecal matter.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And that's why the best censor of your speech is you. You get to decide what comes out. And you are responsible for what comes out.

Sure, but not what I was addressing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah, I guess I'm drawing a difference between things we're still trying to figure out and things where we've reached a conclusion. Like, I've reached a conclusion on prime Kim K. but I'm still working out how I feel about prime Kylie Jenner. :icon_chee

Gotcha. Even then I think judging people's thoughts is...hmmm... Let's just say I think if you need to judge then it should be on actions. If someone doesn't like someone for some stupid reason but treats them with the same dignity and respect they do others then I'd call that person a better human being than most.

I'll take Kylie when she hits her stride as a woman. :wink:

 

[ncordless]

But this is what many are taking issue with. The how; in this case, a freaking camera in the bedroom.The fact that something as intimate as sex(or in this case adultery) from 8 years ago can be brought to light is troubling to some like myself. Of course people are going to judge you from what they know but I'd rather live in a society where they're not privy to the intimate details of your life.

Now of course you make a good point that Hogan is a public figure so that's important to keep in mind but the bedroom is still a pretty intimate place for the public to stick their noses in.

We are responsible for our own privacy. Unlike almost anything else, once you lose it nothing will ever get it back. And it doesn't matter whether it was wrongfully taken from you or not. When it is gone it is gone. And what is learned by the public is learned.


Hulk Hogan was in charge of his own privacy. Someone invaded it, sure, and that person will face lawful penalties, both civil and possibly criminal. Because the same majority that judges him as bad for what he said also says that it is a crime and/or a tort to invade his privacy like that. He is a victim of an invasion of privacy. But even still he won't get that private moment back. As a superstar with a reality tv show, that shouldn't be a mystery to him. He ought not have sex with people who will video tape him, especially if he is going to go off on racist rants. But even still, he should be able to recover what he can through legal action because they did harm him.

But this ain't a court of law and we don't have an exclusionary rule for information wrongly obtained. I can both say that what happened to him was wrong and what he said was utterly condemnable.

 

[panamaican]

And its restoring it in a bad way which is the point. The fact that one might have to 2nd guess what they say in private, with friends who better understand your words because of your shared history, is troubling. Are you saying going back to Salem witch hunts is alright?

I think it's more troubling that people think the things they say in private are immune from judgment. And I don't think it's being restored in a bad way, I think the divergence itself was a bad thing.

Most human ideas are make believe, the only difference is the utility of the make believe ideas and systems. To separate a public sphere, where a certain level of decorum is enforced, and a private one, where friends and family can discuss freely, allows us to engage with those close to us in a more personal genuine matter while still keeping a civil public discourse.

Eroding this puts people's livelihood's at risk because the internet may have recorded them at their worst and that's what a lot of this boils down to; being able to judge people at their worst and not even necessarily for something they did recently. With the Hogan thing we're talking about going into a person's sex life 8 years ago, that's an intrusion I'm not comfortable with.

You're advocating the idea of a public sphere and a private one where people can put forth a public persona that is not reflective of their true private thoughts. 2 levels of society - one where people are disingenuous and one where they are not?

You don't see the problem with that? If I know that your public persona is not reflective of your private thoughts then I have no reason to engage you honestly. I must assume that you're lying first and then the burden falls on you to prove otherwise.

I don't see that as a better society.

And people have to live with being judged as they are when they're encountered. Life isn't a dress rehearsal. We don't always get to put our best version forward. You run into a potential client in the grocery store, you don't get to run home and put on a suit before you come back and pitch him on your services.

The fact that someone across the country can harass you is significant though because like I said earlier its expanded the mob to unprecedented levels. Look at all the shit the dentist who shot Cecil is getting. He had to close his practice and he's getting threats of violence. Sure that was possible before but that doesn't make it right and the fact that people from the entire country can now join in on the with hunt makes it particularly worrisome.

But you're disregarding the other end, you're now promoting yourself to someone across the country. Why shouldn't they be able to respond. We exchange ideas with people in south Africa, Denmark, India, China, etc. on this forum. I don't see anyone demanding that we only debate with people in our zip codes. Yet, when the response isn't hugs and kisses suddenly, internationalism is bad? I don't think that's consistent.

 

[ncordless]

Well, I agree with what you are saying but this also applies to people who voices opinions against racism or sexism. And I think that is the more interesting angle here. That is, I would not be surprised if there are many people who simultaneously publicly criticize Hulk Hogan for being a racist but also hold racist opinions of their own. In fact, I would not be surprised if 90+% of the population think at least one racist thought a month. Obviously, racists would think racist thoughts constantly but people who fight against racism will also have racist thoughts once in a while.

My hypothetical situation is targeted towards the latter. That is, these people would feel uncomfortable thinking that if thoughts were public information, they would be revealed of having contradictory viewpoints (fight against racism + think racist thoughts). Thus, they would have to acknowledge the difference between thinking something versus saying something.

I think racists tend to just assume that everyone else holds racist opinions and is hypocritical about them.

 

[mtron929]

I think racists tend to just assume that everyone else holds racist opinions and is hypocritical about them.

- In your estimate, what percentage of people in the USA are who you would call "racists"?
- Also, what do you think is the percentage of people in the USA who had at least one racist thought in a span of a year?

I suspect that you think the two numbers are very close, right?