Reddit Reddit reviews So You've Been Publicly Shamed

We found 9 Reddit comments about So You've Been Publicly Shamed. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Healthy Relationships
Interpersonal Relations
Self-Help
So You've Been Publicly Shamed
Check price on Amazon

9 Reddit comments about So You've Been Publicly Shamed:

u/UniqueUserName2015 · 58 pointsr/todayilearned

> Heaven help us if we were all to be judged by the dumb shit we did when we were young

Exactly. Everyone on the whole internet should read "So you've been publicly shamed" and then lighten the fuck up! Always remember that one day you could be famous... think about all of the retarded shit that you said when you were in your late teens.

Always remember this quote:

> "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

u/gaminghipster · 13 pointsr/bestoflegaladvice

There's actually a very interesting book that was recently published about this, if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1522609555

(Disclaimer: I'm not, like, the author or anything. I just read the book and thought it was neat.)

u/Bananageddon · 7 pointsr/MensLib

I implore you to read "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. It does a good job of showing how the concept of public shaming has radically changed in the internet age, and how there's often very little relationship between the transgression the shamed person committed, and the punishment dealt out to them by the internet at large.

u/twelveee · 4 pointsr/brasil

Você acha mesmo que eles só convivem com esse ódio cotidiano na internet? Já parou pra pensar como deve ser tenso sequer sair de casa pra essas pessoas? Não estou questionando o quão corruptos ou problemáticos são e o quanto isso é justo ou não, mas é completamente compreensível que pessoas com a Dona Marisa tenham sérios problemas de stress e mesmo de depressão. É importante notar como nossa sociedade moderna tende a julgar as pessoas antes de quaisquer decisões legais. O Lula e a Dona Marisa mesmo não condenados oficialmente de nada provavelmente vivem um inferno na terra de escrachos e hostilização pública. Novamente, não acho que valha a pena entrar no mérito da justiça ou não (assunto bem mais polêmico que acho que merece mais discussão e paciência), mas acho que você consegue notar o quanto essa realidade e esse ambiente podem sim entristecer e mesmo provocar complicações que podem levar a vida de alguém, ainda mais uma idosa como no caso da ex primeira dama.

Só uma última coisa: me parece não ser o caso da Dona Marisa, mas é bom que você entenda que MUITA GENTE se importa com a a opinião das pessoas na internet. Não por acaso vivemos um surto de aumento de suicídios ocasionados por cyberbullying e afins. Talvez você não se importe com a opinião dos outros na internet e eu devo parabenizá-lo por isso, mas milhares de pessoas se importam e chegam até a tomar decisões fundamentais em suas vidas baseado em coisas como essa. Trolls, cyberbullying e etc parecem brincadeira de 4chan mas podem ter consequências muito sérias na vida real. Se tiver interesse, recomendo a leitura: https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1522609555.

u/treein303 · 2 pointsr/PublicFreakout

This is terrible, truly terrible, but it's important to not shame her for the rest of her life for this incident. I am not defending her, but I am saying that all of this makes me think of this book: https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1522609555.

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/nobuyuki · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

May I recommend a good book?

u/pseuduser · 1 pointr/london

> There is absolutely no way this prat went out of his way to fit a rear brake if he didn't have a front one and, even if he did,

The piece discusses the removal of a front brake:

Alliston told police he had been riding a fixed-gear bike since 2014, having removed the front brake from a previous model.

However, it is unclear of the matter also talking about requirement to fit a front brake.

> I recently had a front brake cable snap and I can report that the rear alone was next to bloody useless.

That's a useful data point.

> Thus you're drawing a distinction that isn't there in an attempt to play devil's advocate to /u/DeapVally for no better reason than to have something to say.

In this case (though not all) I was actually here to find out what to think about the piece rather than make comments. I can honestly say that my response to a reflex pedants fact-check rather than trying to make an argument.

> "You can't even spell XXX" is a well-worn metaphor for "you have no experience or expertise on this subject and have no contribution to make". That the metaphor was factually accurate was only an amusing coincidence.

:/ I don't buy this. I think it can get into the realm distracting of ad hominem exclusion from argument. I really hate the feeling that you can't make any mistakes for fear of people using these mistakes against you elswhere

> which was specious conjecture

To be clear, specious means designed to be true sounding but false - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specious

conjecture means I have insufficient proof to come to the conclusion.

Addressing the quality of the argument.

Let's see. My reasons goes as follows:

  • A. Most bikes come with brakes so it is reasonable to assume that the bike had functioning breaks in the absence of other evidence.
  • B. Had the bike had no functioning brakes the would have said so in the piece
  • C. The piece makes repeated reference to "front brake" I had assumed that this was to distinguish from the rear brake.
  • D. It's relevant to the discussion that we not say the cyclist had no brakes when he had some sort of functioning breaks.
  • E. The piece discusses removing a front brake, suggesting the presence of a rear break.
  • F. Care should be taken when talking about "a villian" undergoing some sort of public shaming. It is one's responsibility to correct bad arguments. (c.f this book

    Looking at this now E is a little unclear, it takes about "the front brake from a previous model." but I have no idea what previous model means. Elsewhere, we have "Alliston was riding a “fixie” ... which is not legal on the road without modification", which would suggest the bike never had a front break.

    M1. Also I guess C might be due to front breaks having some special significance legally or in other literature. Looking at this now, front brakes seem to be unmentioned in the highway code. However the highway code refers to some legislation: Laws PCUR regs 6 & 10 & RVLR reg 18 which is wonderfully ungoogleable (I wish lawyers used hyperlinks). PCUR apparently refers to this [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/contents/made] (which unhelpfully exists only as a pdf which appears to have no ascii text information). Reviewing this document it stipulates that a bike need only have one brake, but this brake must be fitted to the front wheel. This would seem to explain the situation. This is the kind of thing that might be common knowledge amongst people in the cycling scene (rather than people who merely cycle).

    Given M1 I think you are probably correct that the cycle in question had no functioning break. At the same time, I think care is also necessary given the lack of clarity in the guardian piece, particularly given E and F.


    > so you could feel clever by contradicting someone on reddit.

    It's interesting to know the intention that my posts suggests to other people. I should have probably included something like 'I think some pedantry is necessary'.

    I'm going to claim that my attempt was mostly taking care when criticising people.

    I'm also don't think my comment was a direct contradiction but highlighting a caveat. Of course, this is a matter that can only really be decided by the person who's comment I commented on. I agree that care should be taking when suggesting that information in a comment might require further thought

    > For what it's worth, all I criticised was your post

    Now this I don't agree with. At the same time, I would agree that there's a problem with the whole "offence thing", and these sort of arguments can get really really boring. And I don't really want to get into this because it's dull.

    Talking about how people can't even spell and don't know anything about an argument have this "continuing" property to them. You can't just modify the argument or add some details to get rid of them. The implications also continue outside the debate and can pick at one. "Can I really spell, maybe I'm stupid". The really nasty thing about spelling and grammar is that they are often kind of tangential to what you are trying to do. The harder you are trying to think the worse your spelling and grammar becomes. I've tried to do quite a few activities that I would class as difficult but only writing and public speaking seem to have this infuriating quality.

    I guess this is part of the reason why ad hominems are such an effective argumentative technique, and their effectiveness (and tangentialness to arguments) is why they can be so horrendously toxic. I will submit that the other extreme of shame policing, "you have to argue how I want you to argue", yawn inducing meta discussion can be equally problematic.

    I guess I just hate the world.

    The implication of this reply


    I guess you are going to think I also wrote this to sound to clever.

    You could probably argue there's some sort of attempt at one-upmanship going on.

    I'm going to claim that it's mostly obsessive attention to detail.

    I don't think this has been a good of use of time for me!


    Edit: list formatting

u/Saminator062004 · 1 pointr/CringeAnarchy

For those who don't know, this tweet caused lots of controversy. For more information, here's a ted talks and a book made by the talker for if you want to go deeper.