Showing posts with label shame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shame. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2018
Thoughts on Celebrities and Outrage
One reason there is so much outrage when celebrities, or famous people in general, are caught engaging in corrupt acts is due to the fact that people project their own sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness onto them. The regular, every day, media consumer thinks of themselves as a good person and so they look at celebrities and assume that the reason they are able to amass such wealth, attention, and power must be because celebrities are also good people.
"I'm good and I like this actor, so they must be good?" One might think. Or, "They are popular and successful. They must be good people."
Because they project themselves onto others when the other fails they see themselves as failing. They identified with the other long enough to feel empathy subconsciously for them. But no matter how much empathy they have for their failed celebrity they must distance themselves from them socially. They rebuke them and signal their allegiance to decency based on the current ethics they adhere to and make their position known to others so that they will not be found out to be just as weak, and corrupt as their favorite famous person.
The question to ask when a person is revealed to be an immoral person, after amassing so much of what we all covet, is how did others allow this to happen? Who supported this corrupt individual throughout their career? Should we blame it on all of the consumers that paid for their success or was it their friends, family members and coworkers that allowed them to flourish while inside they were a blight on decency and a disgrace to those that have the moral bravery to do the right thing?
Famous people should be scrutinized in the same manner as everyone else. We should remain objective about others and not make wild assumptions about who they are based on their appearances in popular media. Also, because politicians are famous people they should be scrutinized just like everybody else as well and laws should apply to all equally. It seems that the rich and powerful sometimes skirt the justice system creating another reason for people to see them as superior. This difference generates more jealousy, resentment, and outrage.
No one should be surprised that someone they don't know, at all, turns out to be a "bad person." There are a lot of "bad" people out there and in the case of politics, I can see why a bad person might be drawn to the power there or born into the corrupting nature of power.
Also, we tend to value money and we assume famous people have money. People wish they could be rich, famous and popular so they look at those who have accomplished such things as if they were them. They put themselves into the shoes of their favorite celebrities and imagine that they are them. They want to relate to and become friends with their celebrities. So, when they find out that their favorite famous person did something socially, legally or morally reprehensible they are taken aback because the venire of their idealism has been stripped away.
Maybe others wish they could be as free and powerful as celebrities and they both envy them and resent them and so they display confused and inconsistent stances on celebrity behavior.
Maybe people covet what celebrities have and so they jump on any opportunity to spite and shame them due to their own jealous nature.
Maybe public outrage is just another mechanism to feel included and socially accepted.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged about immoral celebrities but I don't think they should be more outraged about them than anyone else. We should be outraged at anyone that commits terrible crimes or engages in immoral actions. Also, I don't think we should be surprised when someone we don't know is not the person we assumed they were. Maybe it is just easy to jump on the bandwagon of celebrity outrage because the subject of the outrage is well known. I think it important not to deify others and not to pay so much mind to things that have no real effect on you. There are enough things to worry about going on in my neighborhood and around the people I care about that to worry about what Bill Cosby did doesn't seem that important to me.
Maybe we need these famous baddies to teach us a lesson about making assumptions or elevating people due to their status. Maybe we use these public shamings to teach others that no one is safe from scrutiny. Maybe we jump on the famous case of impropriety to showcase our virtue in a way that resounds throughout the land and reinforces our values. Maybe it's just another case of "first world problems" and entertainment. Maybe we revel in any opportunity to display our moral superiority and regain power over the powerful. Maybe the media leeches onto the famous to capitalize on their fame. Maybe pointing out the failures of others distracts us from our own weaknesses and failures.
Labels:
celebrity,
culture,
fame,
famous,
morality,
outrage,
people,
politicians,
projection,
psychology,
public,
shame,
thoughts,
thoughts on
Friday, September 28, 2018
Online Ethics: Some Thoughts
What considerations should be examined when looking at business ethics on social media?
Is it ok to promote yourself through multiple accounts? Why not just create thousands of accounts and follow yourself?
Is it ok to compile other people's articles just to get views?
Is it ok to pretend to be someone else or create bots that pretend to be something else?
Is it ok to friend everyone on Facebook and then spam them with ads or emails? Linkedin?
In an age where attention is currency what behavior/s should be shunned or prohibited from being exhibited?
Nudity? Violence? Or should it all be allowed in the name of transparency, freedom, and entertainment?
Is it all ok if it's on the internet? Is it even real?
Or is it a reflection of the culture at large? The internet acts as a metric for human activity and thought. It also facilitates human activity and thought. It is a feedback look that can internally track and analyze its own variables as long as someone programs it to do so. If the internet is merely information we can treat its content as we do any piece of information:
1. Attempt to understand it.
2. Asses its importance.
3. Asses its validity.
4. Accept, deny or remain agnostic.
Roughly speaking we should be skeptical of anything online including the motivations, authenticity, and context of any content produced. This is why reputation and trust are so important to establish online. If you want people to trust you-you need to have integrity online just as in real life (Probably because the internet is real and the activities existing on it are real). Since your online reputation is an extension of your offline reputation you should take it seriously.
But with the internet, it is easy enough to hide behind an online persona so you may be able to shield your offline persona from any damage you desire to cause. I can't imagine it is likely that any good can come from the purely anonymous online threat, lie or shaming that comes from those protecting themselves with fake accounts. But just because I think it is repugnant what is the line at which force must be taken?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Bro Virtue Signalling
"Bro Virtue Signalling, or BVS, is when someone who is super cool also espouses virtues in a cool way. It is important that the signal is not preachy or trying to actually make someone feel worthless. It has to be empowering being perceived as being a "big deal".
I thought of this while listening to The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast and the Your Mom's House podcast. In both of these podcasts the comedians that host them make fun of each other in the direction of persuading them of the value of good health. The fat shaming event that Bert Kreischer and Tom Segura engaged in earlier this year went viral and became a huge story. What's interesting is that the entire campaign was centered around a bet between the two out of shape comedians to lose weight. Whomever got the lower BMI rating would win and while the contest went on people from all over the world got in on the jokes and jeering.
This kind of subtle promotion of the virtue of healthier living with the use of crude and "bro" humor is one of the reasons why these comedians and podcasts are so popular. They are not devoid of ethics. They simply hide their virtue signals among vulgar language and sometimes brutal masculine japery. It speaks to the complicated nature of communication and friendship. Friends, especially males, do not always come straight out and say, "I care about you and I think your weight it is unhealthy," but instead say the same thing by saying, "I bet you can't run a mile, because your so fat." It's blunt and to those listening may come off as rude but it's bite is in proportion to the care the one has for the other.
Another example of this can be seen in the crowning of champions for various activities on the Your Mom's House Podcast between the two hosts Christina Pazsitzky and Tom Segura (husband and wife). In between the fart jokes and insane YouTube clips the two comedians throw in little virtue signals that promote a healthier lifestyle without being preachy. They have a running joke that one of them is the "water champion" and while no one is a clear winner the real goal of the competition is to promote the healthy behavior of drinking more water. Considering the two just had their first child I think that this is another example of how adults can mature while remaining true to themselves.
I highly recommend you check out these podcasts:
http://www.yourmomshousepodcast.com/
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/
I highly recommend you check out these podcasts:
http://www.yourmomshousepodcast.com/
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/
Labels:
behavior,
Bert Kreischer,
bro,
Christina Pazsitzky,
communication,
ethics,
health,
Joe Rogan,
lifestyle,
males,
masculinity,
men,
morality,
philosophy,
podcast,
shame,
signal,
Tom Segura,
virtue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

