The (New) Court of Public Opinion

[mtron929]

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

Also, do you think the same way about sexists? That is, majority of males never ever have sexist thoughts?

 

[ncordless]

- 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?

No. I think that someone having a racist thought once in a while is normal. Having a racist thought in the span of a year does not make one a "racist". I have racist thoughts from time to time. At my best, I recognize them for what they are and realize they are wrong. But not always.

I would say there is a sizable percentage of people in the USA who are "racists". Quite more who have an occasional racist thought but don't rise to the level of racists.

And I think that people who excuse racist thoughts on the idea that "well all people really think them so it's okay if I do to" tend to be attempting to justify or excuse their racism.

 

[mtron929]

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.

Yes, but you don't want to run into a potential client on your way to taking a shower in your bathroom.

 

[ncordless]

Also, do you think the same way about sexists? That is, majority of males never ever have sexist thoughts?

What is a sexist thought? Do you mean like superiority? As in "I think men are superior to women"? I don't know.

As a man, I don't compare myself to women and try to decide whether I am better than them or not. They are women and I am a man. We have many common characteristics, but I don't think our sexual differences render one of us better than the other. Just different.

I find men who worry about whether they are better than women to by rather unmanly, to be honest.

 

[Islam Imamate]

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.

And its becoming increasingly difficult to be responsible for one's own privacy.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't judge Hogan because that is fine but even here you are agreeing that what happened to him was wrong. That's what I've been saying, its wrong and this sort of thing is only going to become more common as cameras get smaller and easier to conceal and information harder to conceal and its troubling

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.

I think the divergence was a good thing. Its fine to judge others but having a certain expectation of privacy allows people to be more honest with those close to them instead of having their every action, intimate or not, open to public policing.

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.

No I don't see anything wrong with that, we already use discretion with how much of ourselves we reveal to people and how we act with certain people. You will act one way with your spouse and another with your client. Now, the way you act with your spouse or best friend in your most intimate moments can be known to your clients and it might be taken out of context.

Sure we don't always get to put our best version forward but now our worst versions can be immortalized and open to judgement indefinitely regardless of how harmless that worst version is.

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.

Sure they can respond but I think there's a line that gets crossed. I'm the first person to say that a certain level of internet harassment isn't a big deal. Calling someone a **** on twitter is not a big deal but revealing their personal information or intimate moments is and that is a troubling trend.

 

[ncordless]

Yes, but you don't want to run into a potential client on your way to taking a shower in your bathroom.

Well don't invite him in then.

 

[mtron929]

No. I think that someone having a racist thought once in a while is normal. Having a racist thought in the span of a year does not make one a "racist". I have racist thoughts from time to time. At my best, I recognize them for what they are and realize they are wrong. But not always.

I would say there is a sizable percentage of people in the USA who are "racists". Quite more who have an occasional racist thought but don't rise to the level of racists.

And I think that people who excuse racist thoughts on the idea that "well all people really think them so it's okay if I do to" tend to be attempting to justify or excuse their racism.

Fair enough on the 1st point. At least we agree that quite a number of people have racist thoughts (which might also imply that they utter racist comments) once in a while. So once we agree on this point and recognize that having racist thoughts does not necessarily mean that you are a racist, let's go back to the issue of Hogan. Does he really deserve so much criticism? Perhaps Hogan is one of those guys who blur the distinction between private thoughts and private comments. Then, it would be akin to someone recording one of your racist "thoughts" and converting the thoughts into audio, right?

I am not trying to excuse Hogan's behavior. In fact, I am undecided on if he deserves this level of criticism. Clearly, most people think that he does.

 

[mtron929]

Well don't invite him in then.

Well, in the case for Hogan, he intruded into the bathroom.

 

[ncordless]

And its becoming increasingly difficult to be responsible for one's own privacy.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't judge Hogan because that is fine but even here you are agreeing that what happened to him was wrong. That's what I've been saying, its wrong and this sort of thing is only going to become more common as cameras get smaller and easier to conceal and information harder to conceal and its troubling

Then we should become better at who we share our privacy with. Don't share your privacy with people who would conceal tiny cameras and film you saying racist shit if you don't want them to videotape you saying racist shit. You might have legal action to correct it, but there is NOTHING to be done about the consequences in the court of public opinion. The invasion of privacy was wrong. Not the judgment in the court of public opinion. That's just what is.

How would you correct the problem of judgment in the court of public opinion based upon information wrongfully obtained? Isn't censoring the public's opinion just as bad if not worse than censoring Hogan's? Should we make a law saying that no one can think ill of someone when the damning information is wrongfully disclosed? Or instead make a law that no one can speak about it? Should we become Luddites and forbid ourselves technology because it makes life different than the good old days (of the post-industrialization, pre-computerization world)? You complain of a problem, do you have a solution?

 

[ncordless]

Fair enough on the 1st point. At least we agree that quite a number of people have racist thoughts (which might also imply that they utter racist comments) once in a while. So once we agree on this point and recognize that having racist thoughts does not necessarily mean that you are a racist, let's go back to the issue of Hogan. Does he really deserve so much criticism? Perhaps Hogan is one of those guys who blur the distinction between private thoughts and private comments. Then, it would be akin to someone recording one of your racist "thoughts" and converting the thoughts into audio, right?

I am not trying to excuse Hogan's behavior. In fact, I am undecided on if he deserves this level of criticism. Clearly, most people think that he does.

I find it very hard to believe that Hulk Hogan doesn't understand the difference between thoughts and action. He's a man who has studied how his premeditated actions would effect the public. He knows the difference.

Here, he meant to speak out loud. And he meant to speak to others. What he didn't mean to happen was for others to share what he'd said.

 

[Sabin]

To add to what has already been said (and I tend to agree with Pan's position), while the internet has made things travel faster, there is also much more anonymity in exercising free speech than there used to be. For instance, I don't know any of you guys. You don't really know me. So much of what is said nowadays cannot even be attributed to the actual speaker/author.

Back in the day, everything you said had the consequence of being attributed to you. Now, most of what you say is not.

The court of public opinion has always acted this way. Hell, it used to be much worse. It used to be that your free speech and religious beliefs might invite you to an actual lynching (see Elijah Lovejoy or Joseph Smith). Hell, our country's founding included tarring and feathering people for unpopular speech. And today we are going to complain because more people can hear what you say? Really?

This is true, but one can look at the movement away from lynching as progress and then this new online mob mentality as regression.

Everything has a probability and in criminal justice there is an estimated 1-4% error rate with the death penalty and an estimated 8% error rate with overall convictions. Racism, biases, coverups, corruption, and excessive use of force are already seemingly high and there are numerous individual cases of injustice, especially in the African American community. Sadly, due to inherent flaws in human nature, this may actually be justice near it's best - when performed by trained professionals. The move was away from vigilantism and posses, probably because their error rates and injustices were a lot higher and even more horrible.

I hear you about magnitude, though. Obviously tarring and feathering being much worse than public shaming. What is the magnitude of this newer court... so with young adults, apparently some are bullied into suicide even. I think we may be at the tip of the iceberg regarding magnitude here with adults, Curt Schilling's daughter being threatened with rape, other people receiving death threats of probably low but unknowable credibility. The online court is not as bad as frontier "justice", but that shouldn't minimize opinions of it's nastiness. And then the question remains, how bad can this court get?

Either way, it still feels like a step backwards to me.

 

[Allan__Martel]

People just like to watch others suffer. It's self-righteous assholery.

You stopped the thread on the first page lol

 

[Sabin]

Well, maybe then you are not the right person to have this conversation. I think there is a big debate on whether or not Hulk Hogan should be receiving this much criticism given that he was caught making a private conversation, and not a public one. On one hand, there is a group of people thinking that he deserves all of the criticisms regardless of whether or not the conversation was private/public whereas there is a group of people who feel like this should be factored in on judging him. My question was geared towards the former group. That is, if you criticize Hogan for making the comments in a private setting, would you also criticize him for thinking the thoughts if somehow we can get a glimpse inside his brain?

To me it seems like we're getting closer and closer to that although I'm going to have to come up with some examples. Outside of the criminal justice system, yeah people are punished for legal opinions, ie the TCU student's recent punishment for racially offensive comments. There is some element of fairness there as it was codified in their blanket clause code of conduct. But they've now set a precedent for their institution, that will look bad if they don't continue to follow it. TCU is creeping up on thought crime, but hopefully equally enforced I guess. Man should be judged more on his actions.

 

[ncordless]

To me it seems like we're getting closer and closer to that although I'm going to have to come up with some examples. Outside of the criminal justice system, yeah people are punished for legal opinions, ie the TCU student's recent punishment for racially offensive comments. There is some element of fairness there as it was codified in their blanket clause code of conduct. But they've now set a precedent for their institution, that will look bad if they don't continue to follow it. TCU is creeping up on thought crime, but hopefully equally enforced I guess. Man should be judged more on his actions.

Speech is an action, not merely a thought.

 

[Sabin]

Well, I would say you are an exception then. I would think that for many people, they would not like answering my question (at least answer it truthfully) because for them, it matters on whether racist thoughts were thoughts only versus whether they were uttered. The reason why Donald Sterling incident caused such a stir was that there was audio recording available. For most people, the medium (e.g. audio, video, written words) in which they get the information factors in on how to judge the perpetrator. And perhaps you are being consistent in your viewpoint but my guess is that the majority of people would reluctantly admit that if Hogan merely had racist thoughts, they would think differently about this whole situation.

A gradient of wrong-doing, from an outside perspective might look something like:

Subconscious thoughts < Actual Thoughts < Fantasies < Plans / Spoken Words / Physical Contraband < Actual Actions < Witnessed Actions < Videotaped Actions < Viral Videotaped Actions

Man should be judged more on his actions than thoughts. I hope technology doesn't permit a creep to the left of the gradient. Next up, discrete mathematics and predictive algorithms in law enforcement...

 

[Sabin]

Yeah. Cut the poor powers that be some slack. We shouldn't hold them to a higher standard just because they are in a higher place.

After all, MacArthur spoke ill of his commander in chief and didn't lose his command, didn't he?

And everyone remembers Grant for talking shit on Lincoln. Because America.

And while we are talking about ole' US Grant, nobody ever put his good name through the mud for his private indiscretions and moments of weakness, right?

In this case, I think with the more extensive records of just about everything, we're going to find out just how flawed people are and it's probably going to start at the top. As a thought experiment, I would be interested in knowing if all secrets came to light throughout history, who would have been lost and why and how would history have changed because of it...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Then we should become better at who we share our privacy with.

Right? But when you point that out to date rape victims they get all butthurt over it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Then we should become better at who we share our privacy with. Don't share your privacy with people who would conceal tiny cameras and film you saying racist shit if you don't want them to videotape you saying racist shit. You might have legal action to correct it, but there is NOTHING to be done about the consequences in the court of public opinion. The invasion of privacy was wrong. Not the judgment in the court of public opinion. That's just what is.

How would you correct the problem of judgment in the court of public opinion based upon information wrongfully obtained? Isn't censoring the public's opinion just as bad if not worse than censoring Hogan's? Should we make a law saying that no one can think ill of someone when the damning information is wrongfully disclosed? Or instead make a law that no one can speak about it? Should we become Luddites and forbid ourselves technology because it makes life different than the good old days (of the post-industrialization, pre-computerization world)? You complain of a problem, do you have a solution?

Reread what I said

And its becoming increasingly difficult to be responsible for one's own privacy.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't judge Hogan because that is fine but even here you are agreeing that what happened to him was wrong. That's what I've been saying, its wrong and this sort of thing is only going to become more common as cameras get smaller and easier to conceal and information harder to conceal and its troubling

Now that we know we can't help but judge. I will say that as a society perhaps we should care less about these things but in this case perhaps what he said was too egregious and he was caught sleeping with his friend's wife. 8 years is a long time but not that lone for a guy who's 61, I doubt he's changed much.

More importantly though I am saying that it was how this information was obtained that's troubling and you seem to agree to some extent.

 

[OldGoat]

Speech is an action, not merely a thought.

Thinking is an action as well. For some it is a very strenuous one.

 

[OldGoat]

Then we should become better at who we share our privacy with. Don't share your privacy with people who would conceal tiny cameras and film you saying racist shit if you don't want them to videotape you saying racist shit. You might have legal action to correct it, but there is NOTHING to be done about the consequences in the court of public opinion. The invasion of privacy was wrong. Not the judgment in the court of public opinion. That's just what is.

How would you correct the problem of judgment in the court of public opinion based upon information wrongfully obtained? Isn't censoring the public's opinion just as bad if not worse than censoring Hogan's? Should we make a law saying that no one can think ill of someone when the damning information is wrongfully disclosed? Or instead make a law that no one can speak about it? Should we become Luddites and forbid ourselves technology because it makes life different than the good old days (of the post-industrialization, pre-computerization world)? You complain of a problem, do you have a solution?

So your wife or mistress secretly videotapes your pegging session. You comfortable with the idea that the public should act like self righteous twats?

If I were Hulk I'd told the public to screw themselves for their voyeurism.