I like the idea of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Social Justice is a good thing. The Authoritarian behavior of some people, usually refereed to as SJW's, is toxic. They are not unique, when religion had the moral high ground they used religious morals in the same controlling way. I think that if we can deal with the problems that arise we can find a balance. Find some way of keeping a healthy communication in the movements so the bad does not overshadow the good people are trying to do.
ttrev007 this comment is very well placed for today’s time. Even as a religious person I know what evil was done in the past in the name of religion when they were in control of everything. Balance is key.
witch hunt mentality. its vial and extremely unpredictably volatile by nature. and agree it's not exclusive thing. It's all nasty no matter who it is aimed at. I hate how people who lash out become so savagely outspoken they completely disregard different points of view and try to intimidate and attack in order to be right, prove a point that suits them or their agenda or destroy someone in some way. It's a power trip and bullying is bullying.
+Terry Harris unfortunately Ronson's gynocentric bias means he doesn't see things for what they are. He doesn't see the cases going through our court systems which prove the opposite of his "women in danger" narrative. As Trevor explains. /watch?v=AY24VVnIOMg The only people who can really call the mob are women, because even people like Ronson can't help themselves to rescue the damsel, no matter how illegitimate her claims are. He wishes to explore human nature in his books, but he like many have the bias of putting women on the pedestal, when the internet and feminism have revealed quite the opposite, he talks of psychopaths, but more and more, we see the female psychopath in action. Women who collude with their friends to not onlyh smear people online, but actually to continue the story into the court room, people like Stephanie Guthrie, Zoe Quinn, Lucy Decoutere /watch?v=YwLpqOlsrT0 they answer the question, even as people say " nobody would do such a thing", more specifically "women wouldn't do such a thing", but they do, because the media is highly sympathetic, as we can see even people like Ron are highly sympathetic and has a default bias of believing, even when the facts continue to comeout against their favored parties. And in the end, the legal system allows the mattress girls and the lena dunham's to walk free. There is no social or legal sanction for their smears, their bullying. So people like ron really miss the boat on the real story, which is there are many female psychopaths out there who are far more dangerous than even the men especially on social media because they are immune from repercussions. Just look at his choice of examples, sacco, what of Tim Hunt, the word of a disreputable liar who lied not only about that case but her own credentials still appears on programs like the big questions to portray herself as the victim when she destroyed a man's career, a respected nobel prize winning scientist who has contributed to society something more than her social justice ramblings. He's been made persona non grata to such a degree he's left the UK to continue his career. She continues in her job as a professor of "journalism". It's a joke.
@@woooweee you’ve worded your response rather strongly, but I agree. In particular, there are well documented gender differences in bullying, and females tend to go the passive aggressive route, socially stigmatizing their victims until they’re cast out of not only jobs and social circles, but rendered unemployable - and usually there is no “day in court” because no actual crime has been committed.
Interestingly, here we are 6 years later and this is all much much worse, with widescale cancelling for the most minor of discretions, and officially sanctioned reputation slaughter by the platforms themselves, coupled with complete bias in who is to be ruined and who is to be left untouched. Ironically, online shaming is quickly destroying both free speech and democracy.
Absolutely. It is interesting to revisit this topic 6 years later. All of it fell on deaf ears and now reputational destruction, cancel culture and rampant censorship for the simple exercise of free speech - public shaming has literally destroyed democracy.
+Junaid JD Was terrible, a privileged man who is given platforms to speak his mind everywhere, even Google advocates censorship for others, citing the Guardian of all places as an example of where things are done correctly. His standards for research must be slipping if his opinions are now this baseless.
+Churble Furbles kinda funny that you call him a privileged man, given the issues he's addressing but I wanted to ask, you are given the same platforms to speak your mind, how is this a problem? Why is the fact that he's worked hard in his life and as a consequence he can give a talk at Google, something to attack? You can just as well do the same thing, using the very same platforms. And what do you mean he advocates censorship? He hasn't said that, in fact he even said "I don't think regulation is the answer". I'm not asking rhetorical questions to disagree with you btw, I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying.
Jon misses something important here and that is the well documented gendered differences in bullying. Males tend to use more overtly (physically) aggressive bullying tactics whereas females tend to use weapons that destroy a reputation, including gossip, rumors, shaming, etc according to their social capital - bullying/public shaming. What he says about the men who jump on bandwagons of “moral outrage” having a “that shape am I, potentially” moment is absolutely accurate. And I will even suggest it’s a much “safer” horse to back to defend Justine Sacco (and, yes, what happened to her was grotesque), than he would back a man accused of sexual harassment (and rendered unemployable without any objective investigation). I get it. It’s a tricky area. Nevertheless, who, then, will take a stand for falsely accused men? One example of a falsely accused man is Junot Diaz, who (lucky for him) was cleared of all suspicion after an independent investigation. Turns out one of his accusers makes quite a good living (>4k/month from Patreon) as the self-appointed patron saint of “evil sexual predators.” It’s truly bizarre because you can see she has issues (of a bizarre, hyper sexual, narcissistic nature) just by scrolling through her Twitter feed. I know for a fact that Jon doesn’t want to touch such an issue, as I’ve tried to contact him in the past. He probably thinks I’ve just been let out of the loony bin, but as he demonstrated so adeptly, does that mean I’m wrong?
I like the book to begin with and the fact that people think it's an attack on social justice makes me want to buy extra copies. Well done
I like the idea of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Social Justice is a good thing. The Authoritarian behavior of some people, usually refereed to as SJW's, is toxic. They are not unique, when religion had the moral high ground they used religious morals in the same controlling way. I think that if we can deal with the problems that arise we can find a balance. Find some way of keeping a healthy communication in the movements so the bad does not overshadow the good people are trying to do.
ttrev007 this comment is very well placed for today’s time. Even as a religious person I know what evil was done in the past in the name of religion when they were in control of everything. Balance is key.
the Mob has always been a vicious animal. That is why I have never been one to join the Mob. It is all just juvenile bullying.
witch hunt mentality. its vial and extremely unpredictably volatile by nature. and agree it's not exclusive thing. It's all nasty no matter who it is aimed at. I hate how people who lash out become so savagely outspoken they completely disregard different points of view and try to intimidate and attack in order to be right, prove a point that suits them or their agenda or destroy someone in some way. It's a power trip and bullying is bullying.
+Terry Harris unfortunately Ronson's gynocentric bias means he doesn't see things for what they are. He doesn't see the cases going through our court systems which prove the opposite of his "women in danger" narrative.
As Trevor explains.
/watch?v=AY24VVnIOMg
The only people who can really call the mob are women, because even people like Ronson can't help themselves to rescue the damsel, no matter how illegitimate her claims are. He wishes to explore human nature in his books, but he like many have the bias of putting women on the pedestal, when the internet and feminism have revealed quite the opposite, he talks of psychopaths, but more and more, we see the female psychopath in action. Women who collude with their friends to not onlyh smear people online, but actually to continue the story into the court room, people like Stephanie Guthrie, Zoe Quinn, Lucy Decoutere /watch?v=YwLpqOlsrT0 they answer the question, even as people say " nobody would do such a thing", more specifically "women wouldn't do such a thing", but they do, because the media is highly sympathetic, as we can see even people like Ron are highly sympathetic and has a default bias of believing, even when the facts continue to comeout against their favored parties. And in the end, the legal system allows the mattress girls and the lena dunham's to walk free. There is no social or legal sanction for their smears, their bullying. So people like ron really miss the boat on the real story, which is there are many female psychopaths out there who are far more dangerous than even the men especially on social media because they are immune from repercussions.
Just look at his choice of examples, sacco, what of Tim Hunt, the word of a disreputable liar who lied not only about that case but her own credentials still appears on programs like the big questions to portray herself as the victim when she destroyed a man's career, a respected nobel prize winning scientist who has contributed to society something more than her social justice ramblings. He's been made persona non grata to such a degree he's left the UK to continue his career. She continues in her job as a professor of "journalism". It's a joke.
“Just?” Trust me, it’s far worse when the real victims are the family (especially children) of the, erm, “bullied.”
@@woooweee you’ve worded your response rather strongly, but I agree. In particular, there are well documented gender differences in bullying, and females tend to go the passive aggressive route, socially stigmatizing their victims until they’re cast out of not only jobs and social circles, but rendered unemployable - and usually there is no “day in court” because no actual crime has been committed.
Jon sees the world so differently. He sees a beautiful set but is worried about the hand sanitizer
The technology has changed - the human heart has not.
Interestingly, here we are 6 years later and this is all much much worse, with widescale cancelling for the most minor of discretions, and officially sanctioned reputation slaughter by the platforms themselves, coupled with complete bias in who is to be ruined and who is to be left untouched. Ironically, online shaming is quickly destroying both free speech and democracy.
13:35 "Do you think comedians have more leeway?" - From the future, NOPE.
Ronson's book was borderline prophetic, everything got much worse.
Absolutely. It is interesting to revisit this topic 6 years later. All of it fell on deaf ears and now reputational destruction, cancel culture and rampant censorship for the simple exercise of free speech - public shaming has literally destroyed democracy.
Google still allows for the meme of me be one the first images in their search results,, even after i reported it.
the irony is real.
People justify their actions as by the previous person there isn't much context to go by and so are justified to do as they wish.
I really wonder why Tim Hunt or Matt Taylor were not even talked about in his speech.
So, in hindsight, do you think google learned anything from this talk?
No. It's now much worse. Selective cancel culture and reputational destruction is full speed thanks to the Big Tech Companies.
Great video, but the audio is really quite.
+Junaid JD Was terrible, a privileged man who is given platforms to speak his mind everywhere, even Google advocates censorship for others, citing the Guardian of all places as an example of where things are done correctly. His standards for research must be slipping if his opinions are now this baseless.
+Churble Furbles kinda funny that you call him a privileged man, given the issues he's addressing but I wanted to ask, you are given the same platforms to speak your mind, how is this a problem? Why is the fact that he's worked hard in his life and as a consequence he can give a talk at Google, something to attack? You can just as well do the same thing, using the very same platforms. And what do you mean he advocates censorship? He hasn't said that, in fact he even said "I don't think regulation is the answer". I'm not asking rhetorical questions to disagree with you btw, I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying.
Quiet*. (And may that be the pinnacle of your public shaming ...)
Jon misses something important here and that is the well documented gendered differences in bullying. Males tend to use more overtly (physically) aggressive bullying tactics whereas females tend to use weapons that destroy a reputation, including gossip, rumors, shaming, etc according to their social capital - bullying/public shaming. What he says about the men who jump on bandwagons of “moral outrage” having a “that shape am I, potentially” moment is absolutely accurate. And I will even suggest it’s a much “safer” horse to back to defend Justine Sacco (and, yes, what happened to her was grotesque), than he would back a man accused of sexual harassment (and rendered unemployable without any objective investigation). I get it. It’s a tricky area. Nevertheless, who, then, will take a stand for falsely accused men?
One example of a falsely accused man is Junot Diaz, who (lucky for him) was cleared of all suspicion after an independent investigation. Turns out one of his accusers makes quite a good living (>4k/month from Patreon) as the self-appointed patron saint of “evil sexual predators.” It’s truly bizarre because you can see she has issues (of a bizarre, hyper sexual, narcissistic nature) just by scrolling through her Twitter feed. I know for a fact that Jon doesn’t want to touch such an issue, as I’ve tried to contact him in the past. He probably thinks I’ve just been let out of the loony bin, but as he demonstrated so adeptly, does that mean I’m wrong?
great talk, good thing no blacks said anything... just kidding im white