Do you have a right to privacy (and to call Obama a "nigger?")

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
Could you follow up on this a bit, please? How does it change the individual's responsibility for their own statements? Note, please, I'm not asking about the difference between something said in private vs. something said in public. (I think) you are saying that the degree of public changes the stater's responsibility for what they said. If I got that wrong, my apologies.

Hmm...I suppose I would say that we are always responsible for our words. However, I do think that sometimes we say stupid things we don't mean that don't always make sense when we're sitting around the house joking with friends. But posting something stupid on twitter? The consequences are going to be much greater. Maybe these kids don't know that, but as others have said, the sooner they learn that, the better.

It also occurs to me that some of these kids might come from an area in which it is socially acceptable to say such things. Maybe they get a laugh when talking about "coon hunting in the White House" at school, so they think they will on twitter, too. But for the rest of us, it's not cool to say stuff like that. That is something else these kids need to learn.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Hmm...I suppose I would say that we are always responsible for our words. However, I do think that sometimes we say stupid things we don't mean that don't always make sense when we're sitting around the house joking with friends. But posting something stupid on twitter? The consequences are going to be much greater. Maybe these kids don't know that, but as others have said, the sooner they learn that, the better.

It also occurs to me that some of these kids might come from an area in which it is socially acceptable to say such things. Maybe they get a laugh when talking about "coon hunting in the White House" at school, so they think they will on twitter, too. But for the rest of us, it's not cool to say stuff like that. That is something else these kids need to learn.

One of the problems with twitter and Facebook and so on is that a lot of people feel like they are posting in private when they are really doing it in public. There is the illusion of talking to friends when you are really shouting from the rooftops.

It may be an effect of the fundamental disconnect that comes from using the net overall. People sitting at computers don't see or feel the size of the crowd they're talking to, as a result it feels private when it's far from it.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
I think the problem is trying pair the word "valid" with opinion. If an opinion is a personal, subjective belief, then how can it be anything other than valid for the one who holds it? Is there such thing as an invalid opinion?

I think Richard's "informed" versus "uninformed" makes more sense.

This is it, exactly. And as far as how much weight to give an opinion - that depends entirely on the subject matter and individual decisions. One can certainly dismiss any opinion which differs from their own, and for whatever reasons they wish. Opinions are not statements of fact.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
My name, address, and phone number used to be in the phone book. Does that mean that it's right for someone who disagrees with me to launch a hate campaign and put posters with that information all over town? All over the state?

There may be nothing legally wrong in re-posting that information - but I think looking at the purpose for doing so is needed. And if the purpose is to shame or intimidate, to force someone to stop stating their opinions because they are not popular or considered hateful by some, then the people re-posting are no better, no more 'righteous', than the people who made those remarks in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
 

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
726
Location
Semi-sunny Victoria BC
My name, address, and phone number used to be in the phone book. Does that mean that it's right for someone who disagrees with me to launch a hate campaign and put posters with that information all over town? All over the state?

There may be nothing legally wrong in re-posting that information - but I think looking at the purpose for doing so is needed. And if the purpose is to shame or intimidate, to force someone to stop stating their opinions because they are not popular or considered hateful by some, then the people re-posting are no better, no more 'righteous', than the people who made those remarks in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What site were you looking at that posted their home addresses and telephone numbers?
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
What site were you looking at that posted their home addresses and telephone numbers?
I don't think that's the point. The point is that just because information is already "public" doesn't mean it's okay (morally) to reproduce it and distribute it.
 

CQuinlan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
407
Reaction score
34
My name, address, and phone number used to be in the phone book. Does that mean that it's right for someone who disagrees with me to launch a hate campaign and put posters with that information all over town? All over the state?

There may be nothing legally wrong in re-posting that information - but I think looking at the purpose for doing so is needed. And if the purpose is to shame or intimidate, to force someone to stop stating their opinions because they are not popular or considered hateful by some, then the people re-posting are no better, no more 'righteous', than the people who made those remarks in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


The way I see it, what these kids did was more like posting a newsletter into the letter box of every house they could reach with those remarks, but also with the name of their towns and schools and then having what they did make an article in a newspaper. Would that newspaper be wrong?

Which is why schools have this policy in the first place. The post is attached to the school, making these kids representatives of that school when they post. So it's not just these kids acting in their own free time.

Here most schools have uniforms are you are supposed to adhere to the school rules when in it, even if out of school hours. Students have been expelled for smoking after school in the uniform because parents of future/present students see them as a student of the school, not just as a kid misbehaving.

I don't agree with the tumbler. I think it was a bit dick-ish. But you start learning right from wrong at two, not in your teens. These kids should know better.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
It wasn't "already public" -- it was ATTACHED to the messages.
Okay. If the website had not reproduced it, what are the chances that you or I or X thousand (million) other people would have ever read what they posted, learned their names or their cities or the names of their schools?

It was already public. I'm fairly certain it wasn't illegal to re-post it. Still doesn't make it "the right thing to do." So I agree with shadowwalker.
 

icerose

Lost in School Work
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
1,646
Location
Middle of Nowhere, Utah
Willibe, I have an example of "public" vs "PUBLIC" when it comes to saying what you want with less consequences vs. more. It comes down to audience.

Example 1. Pastor stands up in church and makes a stream of hateful remarks that fit well with his congregation. Chances are he's going to suffer little in the way of backlash from his congregation. That's little public.

However, one member of his congregation (not enough to really influence his status among his congregation) writes an article about it because they are so upset by what their pastor is saying. That becomes a big PUBLIC. Lots of backlash from people not in his congregation, he becomes infamous for his remarks.

This example has happened multiple times.

Example 2.

Romney at his parties for the rich. Such as his joke about the factory switching states and 2000 people out of work. Haha, that's so funny. Little public.

Recorded and made as a soundbyte for the public at large. It's now big PUBLIC and lots of backlash.

It really comes down to audience. But once you say something in public, especially something so searchable as the internet, you don't have control over audience.

Same thing with the horrible hate forums that are built for this sort of spewing hate and twitter, which is a bigger public more open feed. If these teens had posted on a hate based forum they would have been in their element and no one would have batted their eyes there. But instead they chose the bigger public and got wholloped for it. As they should. And if they didn't want their information linked to their hate, they shouldn't have attached it themselves.
 
Last edited:

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
So what people seem to be saying is that if someone says something they don't like, intimidation is a perfectly acceptable response. That the important thing is to shut these people up.

So all those people lambasting the publication of personal info on writers/reviewers were wrong. People should know better than to post their opinions, especially if they have any personal information readily available to others.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
I think the problem is trying pair the word "valid" with opinion. If an opinion is a personal, subjective belief, then how can it be anything other than valid for the one who holds it? Is there such thing as an invalid opinion?

I think Richard's "informed" versus "uninformed" makes more sense.

It's only one facet of opinion. Opinions have two main facets (in my opinion ;) ); valid/invalid and informed/uninformed (akin to logical "soundness").

In this context, "valid" means "logically coherent," as Torgo pointed out earlier. I think the confusion in this discussion comes from conflating "valid" with "worthy of consideration and/or critical analysis." They are not the same.

A valid, informed opinion is one that is logically coherent and sound (i.e. based on relevant, truthful facts). You understand how the person arrived at that conclusion and how the facts support it. It's pretty rock solid and easy to explain and defend.

A valid, uninformed opinion is one that is logically coherent but based on factual errors or gaps in information, i.e., unsound (perhaps relevant info was unavailable to the person when they formed their opinion). You can clearly understand how the person arrived at their incorrect conclusion, but it's still incorrect. It is logically clear but factually wrong or ignorant. This person can be swayed through education.

An invalid, informed opinion is one that is based on relevant facts, but the conclusion drawn from those facts is logically flawed. This could be because a logcial fallacy inadvertantly led the person to an incorrect conclusion or they ignored/disregarded the facts altogether in favor of an opinion based on emotion or bias. In this case, with critical analysis you can retrace the arguments back to the facts and identify the logical flaw. However, the person may or may not be swayed due to the strength of the emotion tied to the subject.

An invalid, uninformed opinion is one based purely on emotion and, oftentimes, biases. Little, if any, thought is put forth into forming the opinion. It's generally ignorant and unworthy of any kind of discussion.


Bringing this back to the original subject of the OP, not all opinions are equally valid, or equally worthy of discussion, though an invalid opinion is not necessarily unworthy of consideration or critical discussion. Depends on the person.

If someone has racist views, it could be because they have always had bad experiences with other races, and that's the only contact they've had with that race, and those negative perceptions were reinforced socially. In such a case, it might make logical sense that they would have racist attitudes, but those attitudes are based on limited information (the only things they know of that race come from the negative representatives they've encountered). This type of opinion can be changed by expanding the person's knowledge base about other races, thus changing them from "uninformed" to "informed."

A person could also be a racist because they were raised that way, never thought to educate themselves on the matter, put practically no thought into their bigotry, and run on emotion, turning bigotry into outright hate. They're pretty much lost causes.
 
Last edited:

CQuinlan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
407
Reaction score
34
So what people seem to be saying is that if someone says something they don't like, intimidation is a perfectly acceptable response. That the important thing is to shut these people up.

So all those people lambasting the publication of personal info on writers/reviewers were wrong. People should know better than to post their opinions, especially if they have any personal information readily available to others.

Who is intimidating them? Ridiculing them, yes. But intimidating?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I also don't think it's the "right" thing to do. I just don't think it was wrong.

And this thing happens informally on twitter. If you use a racist term, you'll be retweeted (usually by someone in that ethnic group, because they search it) and then their followers will retweet it and suddenly a kid with 7 followers is being challenged, berated and/or mocked by hundreds.

The site, by nature, amplifies.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
Who is intimidating them? Ridiculing them, yes. But intimidating?

Don't you remember? These poor racists are being bullied.

The proper response is to laugh along with them and/or ignore them because they're just kids. I mean, it's not like they talk about killing faggots and niggers and hating people simply because they're black or gay. Excuse me -- blackies or fags. That's a normal thing. I've got a million friends who think that kind of thing is funny. They post about it all the time. Along with pictures of themselves smiling, telling what school they're from, and how they hate Obama "SandMonkey" Saddam.

Just in case: :sarcasm

Look, I've got my full name online. Click through to the short story in my sig. That is my real name. My location is actually real. I've repeatedly stated that I go to college. There is only one college in this state that offers my major, which I've repeated a million times on this site. I've also stated my race, just in case anyone is slow on the uptake. Granted, you'd have to look a bit for this info if you weren't a regular member of this site, but someone in Albuquerque could easily find me by going to UNM and asking a few people if they knew me. Probably wouldn't take longer than a few hours. I understand the consequences. I don't really care.

What people -- most of you guys, really -- don't seem to understand is that public info is easily found for most teenagers with apps like FourSquare, or any of the million apps that post your location -- or when you yourself tag your location when you're going out to party. For instance -- a friend of mine, with her Facebook account, has posted "Out at Taco Cabana having a good time eating Fajitas with ... Cory A. etc.., etc..."

Her account is public. Anyone can see her info if they searched her on Facebook. I've told her time and time again not to do that, but she never listens to me.

People also post all of their info conveniently on one page, in case you've never used FB before.

You know, like phone numbers, school, job, political affiliation, SO, the car they drive, etc... Some even post their addresses.

This site has done nothing but link to it, telling you who said it. That's it. If I had the time on my hands, I could do it. Very easily. There's nothing private about the info. If they're scared for their lives... well, I don't care. I find it very hard to care for someone when they've repeatedly stated that they want to kill people who look like me, or that they hate people who look like me, or they want to hang fags and and niggers and come after them with coons. There's really no subtlety there. Normal people do not post things like that. They are not being bullied.

Let's repeat this again:

The kids who call people who look like me niggers, and say they'd like to hang us are not being bullied or intimidated in any kind of way. They are the bullies.

Jeesh, next are we going to be talking about the poor, intimidated KKK and why did they have to stop harassing those niggers, they were just having fun? Because this is the behavior that leads to joining hate groups, you know?

I mean, really -- "What do you call 5 niggers hanging from a tree in MS? A wind chime?"

"The KKK wants you!"

"I hope the white house burns down with Obama and his family inside."

And they're the victims. Give me a break.

This is why the military tells us not to do this. And never to post pictures of our ID's online. That's just beyond stupid.


What exactly is the proper response to all of this? I, for one, am glad they're being aired out. I see nothing hypocritical about the website, or what Jezebel did. I see nothing petty about it, either. If anything, I'm kind of sad other racist teens will stop posting this stuff on their feeds. It'll make it harder to determine who's a jackass and who's not.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
When you are dealing with kids, you don't repost the awful things they said without removing personally identifying information. Because: kids.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
When you are dealing with kids, you don't repost the awful things they said without removing personally identifying information. Because: kids.

And, also because it is still spreading the awful things.

But that's an adult reaction, from someone who cares about community.

You weirdo. :)
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
It's only one facet of opinion. Opinions have two main facets (in my opinion ;) ); valid/invalid and informed/uninformed.....
This was a very cool post, IMO. :)

Don't you remember? These poor racists are being bullied.
Eh, just FYI, I don't think they're being bullied, (at least, not by the website, don't know what's happening on their personal FB pages). The website, though, could encourage bullying by the wrong kind of people who get off on spewing hate back at hate.

I'm not outraged at the website. I'm just disappointed and I think it's unhelpful and inappropriate, especially if adults created it.

It's like shadow said, two wrongs don't make a right.

When you are dealing with kids, you don't repost the awful things they said without removing personally identifying information. Because: kids.
I agree.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,212
Reaction score
15,821
Location
Australia.
I wonder if it mightn't have been better just to send the posts to the Head and or the school board with a note that suggests there'll be a follow up to see that it was dealt with? That would seem to be a better way to model civil behaviour.

(I wouldn't have done it quite that way because I'm not quite that civil. I'd have sent a note with the details to the Head and the school board if possible, saying that I was planning a story about this kind of thing for a national newspaper/magazine/community forum and would be very interested in discussing it with them. When would be a good time to call?)


ETA: I'm always amazed at how young adults are young adults except when they behave abominably - and then they're just kids. I'm sure there's a lesson there somewhere, if we could just unpack it...
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
When you are dealing with kids, you don't repost the awful things they said without removing personally identifying information. Because: kids.

This kind of comes back to a point I think someone else made: Should minors be allowed to distribute their personal information to hundreds of thousands of people in the first place?

Because making it the responsibility of the messenger to remove it relies on much more generosity than the average person has. Mind you, that wouldn't actually make it hard for someone to connect the tweet to the person who posted it. A quick copy and paste (even of a portion if the tweet) will once again bring you to the individual's name, location and photo.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
This kind of comes back to a point I think someone else made: Should minors be allowed to distribute their personal information to hundreds of thousands of people in the first place?/QUOTE]

This is an almost daily discussion in the world of education technology. We can teach kids to cross the street safely, or we can build walls. One of these has a chance of working.

We cannot stop kids from posting information. We can, however, teach them consequence and good habits. Hopefully not in that order. :)
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
The thing for me is, if they posted on Twitter, let the responses come on Twitter - but putting it elsewhere, with the intent of inflaming the situation, is wrong. Force, whether it be via shame or intimidation, rarely if ever changes minds. It only produces resentment and anger - so the people may shut up, but that doesn't mean they've changed, or that they won't find some other outlet for their views.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
The website, though, could encourage bullying by the wrong kind of people who get off on spewing hate back at hate.
That's if you think racists getting their asses handed to them is a bad thing. If they said any of the things they said on twitter in a lunchroom full of black students (or as they would say, niggers) you can be sure no-one would just walk away as if they'd asked for ketchup. There would be a fight. They would get their asses kicked. It would be their problem. I would not care.
I'm not outraged at the website. I'm just disappointed and I think it's unhelpful and inappropriate, especially if adults created it.
I do not agree. I find it very helpful and not at all inappropriate. It's the perfect link back for people who say racism doesn't exist any more. Nope. It's still alive and breeding in stupid white kids across the US.
It's like shadow said, two wrongs don't make a right.
But that would be if you think it's wrong. Which I don't. Shadow also thinks the poor idiots are being intimidated too, to which I roll my eyes.

I'm failing to see the outrage. Taking the "but they're just kids!" element out of this, what exactly is wrong about "outing" (and I use that world lightly because there was zero outing involved) racists on a tumblr?

Would it be any different if they were advocating hatred and violence against women? Gays? Children? How public do they need to make the info? Do they need to stamp it as wallpaper against their backgrounds?

Is the mere existence of the site wrong, or simply that they copy and pasted locations, rather than just linking to the FB pages? Or that they didn't block out the names that are so easily found?

Go, right now, search #nigger or #kkk on twitter. It is right there, for your perusal. The site did nothing but compile the racists in one place and make it easier to follow the conversation. That's the internet for you. These "kids" knew that. That is the nature of social media. Tumblr, Facebook, and Twitter are all intertwined. They are made that way on purpose for the ease of expanding your social sphere and finding like minded people to scream your stupid thoughts at who you might know in RL. There are classes, in school, that teach teens how to use technology. They probably know more about social media and privacy settings and the like than you and I do because they've had classes on it since they were born. This is nothing new to them.

I, btw, am no shining example of intelligence for my peers. It always astounds me when people on the internet can't believe I'm actually the age I say I am. These are just idiots. They are not an average sample of teenage intelligence.
 
Last edited:

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,212
Reaction score
15,821
Location
Australia.
I, btw, am no shining example of intelligence for my peers. It always astounds me when people on the internet can't believe I'm actually the age I say I am. These are just idiots. They are not an average sample of teenage intelligence.

Gotta say, you're far more representative of all the teens I know or have known than these idiots are.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
Gotta say, you're far more representative of all the teens I know or have known than these idiots are.

Thank god for that. I was starting to wonder if teens posting racist things on Twitter and FB became the norm when I stopped using those sites. From the comments on the Slate article, and the Jezebel article, it seems like a lot of people have become accustomed to their behavior and would rather it be ignored than addressed.

And that surely solves the problem.