Hurting Economically Does Not Absolve a Trump Vote

[_EAllusion]

There's a recent poll out of Italy in which now half the public contends that racist acts are justifiable. The reason for the poll is that this comes in the wake of high profile hate crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ustifiable

Shame for being racist is not going great in Italy. In what is not a coincidence, support for Italy's neo-fascist party is on the rise and is an increasingly important part of their governing coalition.

[_honorentheos]

If Schmo wants people to care about his opinion enough to have it affect their behavior, they have to care about his opinion as the first condition. Telling them he thinks they are stupid "F"s is probably working against his stated aim.

It's not really about what I personally think or do; it's what we all do in the aggregate. My opinion, like everyone else's, is barely worth squat. It's when many people begin to share a particular opinion that culture starts to move.

Homophobic comments about gay people were a regular thing when I was a kid. Nobody thought twice about it. Over time, more and more people said, "quit being homophobic" in those situations, and now the society views homophobia in a totally different way, on average. That is a product of shame.

As I said before, what matters most is how a person relates to the source of shaming. There is no amount of shaming from someone you don't respect that's going to change your behavior. Given enough others with whom to form a group around a new identity, the result is just more, deeper division rather than reform.

It isn't an argument to say one can shame others into behaving in a way one wants them to behave. One ought to have a reasonable sense of the social dynamic involved to have some expectations for the results. It can and does backfire, resulting in the behavior being called out getting entrenched instead. Shaming is an imperfect instrument. EA just pointed out an example in Italy where trends and opinions on racially motivated acts is moving in the opposite direction. Why? I suspect that's a more complicated question than just people in Italy have reason to not feel shamed by their racist feeling and expressions but I also suspect that is what it gets reduced to in some people's calculus.

My point was that shame, if you want it to be effective, probably still begins with work that involves ensuring the boundaries you place around people incorporate those you want to see change rather than exclude them. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

[_EAllusion]

As I said before, what matters most is how a person relates to the source of shaming. There is no amount of shaming from someone you don't respect that's going to change your behavior.

My professional work touches on shame from a different enough angle to be a little fuzzy on this, but I'm fairly sure this statement is just false. Are you saying based on your intuition about how things work, or are you relying on research?

Just as a matter of underlying theory, people can be made to feel self-conscious about their behavior by those they don't respect. I strongly suspect you are being naïve about what can and cannot induce self-critical emotions.

[_Some Schmo]

As I said before, what matters most is how a person relates to the source of shaming. There is no amount of shaming from someone you don't respect that's going to change your behavior. Given enough others with whom to form a group around a new identity, the result is just more, deeper division rather than reform.

You missed the point. There isn't a single source of shame if it's going to work. Lots of different people have to take a new attitude on board. It's an incremental change, not an instant one.

It isn't an argument to say one can shame others into behaving in a way one wants them to behave.

Yes it is. It may not be a good one, but it's an argument.

But again, you missed the point. I'm not saying "one can shame others into behaving" a certain way. I'm saying "many can shame others into behaving" a certain way.

My point was that shame, if you want it to be effective, probably still begins with work that involves ensuring the boundaries you place around people incorporate those you want to see change rather than exclude them. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

No, man. You're overthinking it. These things aren't conscious projects. They are slow cultural revolutions (like the recent turn in attitude toward homosexuality, for instance).

I'm not sure how many times I've mentioned it here, but in case anyone missed it: I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I am a commentator, not a persuader. Take the comments or leave them.

[Guest]

As I said before, what matters most is how a person relates to the source of shaming. There is no amount of shaming from someone you don't respect that's going to change your behavior. Given enough others with whom to form a group around a new identity, the result is just more, deeper division rather than reform.

You missed the point. There isn't a single source of shame if it's going to work. Lots of different people have to take a new attitude on board. It's an incremental change, not an instant one.

It isn't an argument to say one can shame others into behaving in a way one wants them to behave.

Yes it is. It may not be a good one, but it's an argument.

But again, you missed the point. I'm not saying "one can shame others into behaving" a certain way. I'm saying "many can shame others into behaving" a certain way.

My point was that shame, if you want it to be effective, probably still begins with work that involves ensuring the boundaries you place around people incorporate those you want to see change rather than exclude them. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

No, man. You're overthinking it. These things aren't conscious projects. They are slow cultural revolutions (like the recent turn in attitude toward homosexuality, for instance).

I'm not sure how many times I've mentioned it here, but in case anyone missed it: I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I am a commentator, not a persuader. Take the comments or leave them.

Maybe I'm missing the point. But in my mind it's arguing one can shame a teen into doing something you want them to do that they are rebelling against. It doesn't really matter how often you tell a teenager they should do something that is in their best interest if the two of you have built walls between you. Doing so is essentially just pushing them even further away from your influence and into the influence of their like-minded peers. Perhaps they find an adult they respect who helps them see what you are saying. Maybe they grow up and become an adult with an adult's perspective. Maybe. But it wasn't because the person they didn't respect was telling them they needed to change.

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe I'm missing the point. But in my mind it's arguing if you tell a teenager enough times they should do something that is in their best interest that is essentially pushing them further away from your influence and into the influence of their like-minded peers. Perhaps they find an adult they respect who helps them see what you are saying. Maybe they grow up and become an adult with an adult's perspective. Maybe. But it wasn't because the person they didn't respect was telling them they needed to change.

I agree. It wasn't one person; it was the body of experience that made it happen. It was the combination of everything.

[_honorentheos]

Maybe I'm missing the point. But in my mind it's arguing if you tell a teenager enough times they should do something that is in their best interest that is essentially pushing them further away from your influence and into the influence of their like-minded peers. Perhaps they find an adult they respect who helps them see what you are saying. Maybe they grow up and become an adult with an adult's perspective. Maybe. But it wasn't because the person they didn't respect was telling them they needed to change.

I agree. It wasn't one person; it was the body of experience that made it happen. It was the combination of everything.

I guess I see the combination of everything working in the opposite direction, though. Forces on both sides of the political aisle are working overtime to make sure one sees the other side as so damaged, so misguided their opinions don't only not matter. They are corrupted.

In this environment, shaming without first attempting to establish common ground seems like just one more thing pushing things towards greater division.

[_Some Schmo]

I guess I see the combination of everything working in the opposite direction, though. Forces on both sides of the political aisle are working overtime to make sure one sees the other side as so damaged, so misguided their opinions don't only not matter. They are corrupted.

In this environment, shaming without first attempting to establish common ground seems like just one more thing pushing things towards greater division.

Yeah, maybe. The problem is that one side is so deeply entrenched in bad faith BS that attempting to establish common ground is a largely useless pursuit. At some point, you've got to point at the others and say, "Screw you guys. You're full of crap, and there's no point trying to argue with you. Talk to me when you want honest dialog."

If that doesn't work, nothing ever will.

And I'll just say up front, I don't have much hope for this situation. I think the country's screwed. Too many shameless damned morons.

[_EAllusion]

A lot of things one might say risk a great deal of social disapprobation and subsequent shame if you are, say, under 40, but you might feel more open about if you are, say, over 70. There were some big social shifts within that timeframe.

I think you need to create a firm distinction between the proposition that fostering shame can shape social behavior and be adaptive and the idea that shame for "X" is going to be socially counterproductive. It seems like that is getting muddled.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm on travel this week in Wisconsin. I went to Perkins for dinner last night (the wisdom in this highly questionable - it's the closest place to the hotel I'm staying) and listened to an elderly man, a veteran incidentally, talking loudly to his waitress about the "national embarrassment that is our president".

Experiences like this are a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's nice to go to a Trump won state and listen to someone in the very demographic that leans mostly toward Trump trashing him ruthlessly. (This guy was talking really loud, saying things like, "He's a known rapist! How can people vote for a rapist?!")

On the other hand, it's a little disheartening, because I know the experience is anecdotal, and Wisconsin is a state in play next election.

Still... it was nice to listen to a complete stranger echoing my own kinds of thoughts in a state like this. Dinner at Perkins was better than I expected (although the dinner itself was... well, as you might expect).

ETA: the point of this post, which I forgot to mention, is this is what I view as the kind of thing that contributes to a sense of shame. Everyone in that restaurant could hear this army veteran trashing the President.