public shaming

One thing that really gets me about today’s society is how emotional/psychological child abuse is normalized and even celebrated.

I’ve noticed a phenomenon of parents getting together and talking about how they’re such a Mean Mom or Mean Dad and how they’re raising their children to be respectful. They talk about destroying their children’s possessions, isolating them, humiliating them, and/or publicly shaming them.

And when these people hear about, say, a parent smashing a kid’s phone for not cleaning their room or burning their possessions or filming a punishment or embarrassing moment and putting it up on social media, they commend the parents for “teaching the kids a lesson”.

Why the fuck do we, as a society, think this is okay?

It doesn’t teach kids valuable life lessons, it teaches them to be scared of repercussions. It’s bullying and child abuse and for some reason, people think that’s commendable.

Whenever I hear people saying “haha I bet that 14 year old learned a lesson”, it instantly makes me suspicious of them. I will instantly think of you as either a potential child abuser or a child abuse enabler.

As a survivor of psychological abuse, people dismissing this behavior as “harmless life lessons” makes me wonder if it really was abuse. If I deserved it. If I really deserved to have my pet’s life threatened because I was a liar.

It’s not cute. It’s not “good parenting”. It’s intimidating, shaming, and traumatizing your child into compliance.

Some things that make me feel unsafe in public

- being asked if I’m Jewish because of the way my hair looks
- being interrogated about my personal political beliefs because I am identifiably Jewish
- being expected to denounce and apologize for Israel every time I want to be Jewish in public
- being told “I don’t hate Jews, but I’m pro-Palestine” in response to my Jewishness
- being told I’m going to hell for being Jewish
- non-Jews dictating to me what does and does not constitute antisemitism
- people who are not me and who don’t look like me engaging in endless debate about what “race” I belong to
- white supremacists telling me that I “control the world” and “should go back to Germany” while folks on the left tell me I benefit from white supremacy
- having to make a choice between queerness and Judaism

Noticeably absent from this list:
- seeing others’ religious symbols on display in public


Keith Body Pillow

Man I had important stuff to do today ( lies) Instead I got drunk and drew this ( truth )
The Perils And False Rewards Of Parenting In The Era Of 'Digi-Discipline'
In a society where black people have power, beating children and posting it on social media is just as much about performing respectability as it is punishing wrongdoing.

The videos are an infamous genre unto themselves: “Mother Punches Her Daughter Dead in the Face for Having Sex in the House!” “Dad Whups Daughter for Dressing Like Beyonce.” “Son Left In Bloody Mess as Father Forces Him to ‘Fight.’” Their images stream from Facebook timelines and across YouTube channels, alternately horrifying and arresting: burly fathers, angry mothers, lips curled, curses flying, hands wrapped around electrical chords, tree branches, belts, slashing down on legs, arms, buttocks and flesh as children cry and plead and scream out in agony.

Tens of millions have clicked “play,” becoming voyeurs of this new form of child punishment — what some observers call “digi-discipline.”

Rather than sticking to the time-honored tradition of physically disciplining their children behind closed doors, parents, many of them black, buoyed by the instant gratification and viral fame that social media provides, are increasingly uploading videos of the corporal punishment they mete out on their kids, sparking intense debate on the usefulness of this particular form of public shaming.


just dropping by to mention that terfs are literal predators who prey on younger/ignorant women and groom them with their beliefs under the threat of isolation and public shaming and relationship-related abuse.

I was thinking about Jon Ronson’s book about public shaming and about recent debates about political tactics and something came together:

When making arguments about ethics, white men consistently ignore power as a lens of analysis. For many of them, actions are either right or wrong regardless of power differentials between the people involved, the stakes for those with less power, and the options they have available to them.

Protesting to have Milo disinvited from your campus therefore becomes *just as bad* as Milo’s own actions towards marginalized people, despite the vast disparities in harm done and options available. (This is not a strawman. When y'all say, “This makes you just as bad as them,” that’s literally what you’re saying.) That Milo’s talk, as planned, would’ve caused serious, measurable, and irreparable harm to specific students, and that protesters had exhausted all “proper” channels for months beforehand, doesn’t seem to matter in this analysis.

All that matters is the specific action taken. “Preventing a person from speaking.” “Destroying property.” “Public shaming.” These actions are seen as unethical regardless of who did them and why, what consequences they face if they do not take these actions, and what other options–if any–they have available.

I keep coming back to MLK’s quote about riots being the language of the unheard. For the most part, people resort to tactics that fall into ethical grey areas because other tactics are unavailable or have already failed. I’m sure that there are people who do so despite having better options, just as there are always people who act unethically in other ways.

But unfortunately, for an outside observer with no skin in the game, it’s very hard to tell whether or not that’s the case. I saw so many posts patronizingly chiding Berkeley students for not trying other tactics before protesting and/or destroying property (although most did not destroy property, and the oft-used phrase “violent protest” implies much more than that). They had no idea of the lengths to which the protesters went to utilize “appropriate” means to keep themselves and their community safe. It didn’t work. They remained unheard.

Any ethics that ignores the role of power will privilege the powerful. Our Republican members of Congress don’t need to riot, set fires, and block the streets in order to get what they want. They do appropriate, ethical things like draft policies and have debates and vote. Because they have the power to. The specific actions they take–drafting policies, debating, voting–are not seen as inherently unethical things to do. Yet they’ve destroyed lives, families, and communities. They’ve achieved a level of destruction that even the rowdiest masked protesters never could, not that they’d want to.

  • <p> <b>P5 shit that keeps me awake at night:</b> <p/><b></b> -Ryuji saying "For real?!" In the EXACT same tone even when its not the voice clip<p/><b></b> -Sojiro saying "Hoo boy."<p/><b></b> -The fact that Akira's life is dictated by a cat. No, the fact that he can actually bring his cat to school and NOBODY tells the teachers during the school year. Akira even talks to his cat while taking exams. Does anyone hear Morgana meowing or do they expect it from a delinquent<p/><b></b> -Yusuke explaining in the most eloquent way possible that he might have to sneeze. It sounds like he has to meet the quota for an essay and he need the extra 50 words to meet the expectations<p/><b></b> -Futaba and Mishima saying "Kek" outloud. In public. Without shame.<p/><b></b> -Literally anything Morgana says when he was the navigator<p/></p>

Publicly shaming your kids is how you raise children who have mental health problems. That’s how you raise people on both sides of the abuse spectrum. You raise victims, who become used to being stepped on, and you raise abusers, who become used to that sort of belittling attitude and do it to others, thinking it’s okay. If it is a problem of disrespect, give them an option to straighten out or get out. How would you feel if somebody tugged down your pants in public? It’s just humiliating and it doesn’t teach you anything. Unless they are doing something HORRIBLY wrong, like smoking meth or SERIOUSLY hurting other people, they are not deserving of that.

Rant over.

There are things that are inexcusable, unforgivable, and never ever allowed for parent to do to a child, no matter the circumstances, no matter what you did, no matter how they did it or what they intended. If a parent, or anyone else, does this, you do not have to forgive them, you do not have to let it go, you do not have to leave it in the past, and you do not have to trust this person ever again.

1. Physical violence. Beating, slapping, spanking, throwing objects, breaking your possessions, using a weapon, physically forcing you into actions against your will, not allowing sleep or eating, forcing physical contact, forcing eating, physical intimidation and threat of violence. All are inexcusable, you cannot provoke them, each one a crime against your person.

2. Death Threats. It doesn’t matter how they said it, if they dismissed it as a joke, if you couldn’t tell if they really meant it, if you think you shouldn’t have taken it seriously. A death threat, no matter how subtle, vague or in which tone it was said, causes permanent inability to feel safe. It is not acceptable for anyone, in any tone of voice, any situation, to imply or threat discontinuation of your life.

3. Slurs. Insults that were used for a long term to dehumanize, devalue, and express hatred towards entire groups of people are not to be used on a child! By their own parents! Slurs are expressions of utmost hatred and disgust, desire to harm and dehumanize, there is no excuse for using them on you, and certainly no need to forgive anyone who demands that you are not a human being.

4. Blackmail. Being forced to shape your decisions, your actions, words and emotions around a threat of being stripped of your well being, knowledge that unless you do what is asked of you, you will be forced to bear harm, to endure abuse that you find unbearable, being forced into a corner and having to allow yourself to be controlled in order to survive, that is not humane, that is not forgivable.

5. Psychological Abuse. A parent demanding that the abuse is for your own good, telling you that hurting you will make you better, demanding that you’re weak for getting hurt, degrading you to an animal or object, insisting that the abuse is your own fault, demanding that you deserve pain, that you need it, convincing you they’re not hurting you at all while they abuse you, gaslighting your senses, minimizing all that you are and all that you do, dismissing your humanity and brainwashing you to doubt yourself, doubt your worth, doubt your abilities, doubt your value, this is complete psychological destruction of a person and not something you could ever forgive.

6. Sexual Abuse. In any form. I’m not only talking sexual contact, a parent is not allowed to look at you in sexual way, talk about you or at you in a sexual way, comment subtly on your sexuality or your body, spy on your private moments, expose you to sexual material, imply in any way they own or control your sexuality, compare you to anyone sexually or in any way degrade you to a sexual object in their eyes. And they are not to ever, ever, touch you in a sexual way. Not even think about it. If you even get a predatory or sexual vibe from one of your parents, it’s wrong. It’s unsafe. No trust.

7. Humiliation. Both public and private. Forcing shame and degradation on you in front of others is psychologically and socially destructive, it causes trauma, toxic shame, and emotional isolation from others, it puts you apart as if you’re somehow less, unwanted and seen as disgusting by the social environment. It can hurt just as much knowing that in private, with someone you trust, you’re being used as a toy for their sadism. This kind of abuse is not from a person who could ever care about you. It’s not forgivable. 

8. Emotion policing. Absolutely nobody gets to decide what you should and shouldn’t be feeling. Nobody gets to interfere with you feeling your own feelings. Nobody gets to punish you for the way you feel. Nobody gets to tell you how you feel. Anyone trying to police and control your emotions is a danger. Anyone demanding for your emotions to be convenient to them is a danger. Nobody gets to compromise your own ability to experience and feel your own life in order to benefit and get what they want from you. Anyone trying to do so is destroying your emotional well being for their own selfishness. And you don’t ever have to forgive someone who was ready to destroy you for their gain.

9. Trauma invalidation. Any kind of invalidation hurts. All and any invalidation of your feelings, memories, opinions and conclusions hurts. It’s all painful and dangerous abuse, and it can hurt you as far as pushing you into insanity. But trauma invalidation is the most destructive, harmful, and hateful kind of abuse. Someone invalidating what already destroyed you will add up to the original trauma and reinforce it. It’s personal. It’s sabotaging your recovery. It’s pushing you further into trauma. It’s extremely malicious and deteriorating to your life and your health. You do not have to ever forgive it. You can do all it takes to stay safe from it.

10. Pushing into suicide. No matter what circumstances or intention, if you are feeling close already, and someone decides to give you a final push, give you extra reasons or ideas to why you should do it, imply that it would be better if you were dead and if you ended yourself, or in another way cause this “close” to get “closer”,  they are a huge danger. This is equivalent to a murder attempt, and it should be taken very seriously. Keep yourself safe from this kind of abuse at any cost. Your life is on the line. You do not ever have to forgive a murder attempt, in any form.

Public Shame

As I mentioned, I recently read Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” and thought it made some very compelling points on the renaissance of public shaming in the age of social media.  I was going to post my highlights, but then I realized I’d highlighted about 30% of the book, so instead:

I wrote down what I thought were some of the key, take-home points the book made, and pulled quotes from the book in no particular order for each of them.  It’s  still a wall of text, but feel free to wade in if you’re interested.

Again, I strongly recommend giving this book a read.

  • Public shaming is often motivated by a belief that one is Doing Good
  • Public shaming is about social conformity
  • Public shaming can make us LESS aware of viewpoints different that our own 
  • Shame works because we are all afraid
  • Shaming others can bring out our own brutality
  • Shame leads to dehumanization and “death of the soul”
  • Shame leads to violence
  • Technology has strange warping effects on how public shaming affects us (and social media shaming can have longer impacts than we expect)
  • There is evidence that “De-shaming” may have more positive outcomes than shaming

quotes from the book supporting each point under the cut. (bolding mine, quotes by paragraph and in no particular order)

Keep reading

Stop the fat shaming in comedy

Why is being fat considered comedy? In some skits/tv shows/movies they use fat suits to help with their joke. Almost every time there’s a fat person in a comedy, their size is the punchline. Am i the only one who thinks this influences society more than we think it does? Think about it. Fat people are used as comedy in the media. Usually the joke is about how much they overeat or are too lazy to move. That’s not always the case and it makes people assume that it is. We need to stop fat shaming in comedy. It makes fat people think their body’s a joke. There’s absolutely nothing funny about someone’s weight or size.

Of all the characters they have at their disposal, Nickelodeon went with “Generic Tweencom Girl in an Oyster”

EDIT: The girl’s name is Riele Downs (from Henry Danger), so the rhyme is supposed to be “Riele on a Shell”. My apologies to her and her fans for not knowing. Still, not many people beyond Nick’s demographic know her and they could’ve used a much more recognizable character.

Reblog this with a better “Elf on a Shelf” rhyme featuring a Nick character more people can recognize.

“You go on. You just go on. There’s nothing more to it, and there’s no trick to make it easier. You just go on.”

“And what do you find on the other side? When you go on?”

“Your life again. What else?”

“Is that a promise?”

“It’s an inevitability. No trick. No choice. You just go on.”

~ Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory


Inktober Day 16

I started this sometime last year (or a few years ago?) for a July disability representation event, but never finished it. Finally dug it out today to complete it quick for today’s Inktober. It’s nice to have it done. This was… I don’t know whether I would call it a powerful scene, but it was introspective, and cut deep enough that I still think back to it from time to time.


Consider this, next time you think about reblogging that call-out post about a person you don’t know.

Why I Was Fired By Google, by James Damore

Special to the Wall Street Journal

I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.”My firing neatly confirms that point.

How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity,almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment.

When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.

Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.

It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

You can be sure

That anyone attacking Adam Driver for joining the military after 9/11 wasn’t alive or wasn’t nearly old enough to be aware at the time and thus has not the slightest clue what it was like.

Seeing thousands slain just because they showed up for work that day changed everything. People forced to choose between falling 100 stories or burning by their desks. Killed by strangers who hated them and hated life. Everyone, Democrat and Republican, young and old, wanted to strike back at Al-Qaeda and the country that gave refuge to Osama Bin Laden. That impulse had nothing to do with race or religion.

More importantly, Driver, rather than playing into a simplistic narrative of being a selfless, patriotic poster boy, has been critical of his rush to serve and the ultimate wisdom and efficacy of his desire for vengeance. It’s important that a prominent former marine acknowledges that mindset, as it might encourage others to talk about their experiences. It might even dissuade other young men from joining for reasons they might eventually regret.

Shaming Driver’s honesty over his entirely commonplace and understandable anger doesn’t help. Lying about and twisting his words to calumniate his character is inexcusable and transparent. Driver has helped raise awareness about problematic issues in the US military. Attacking him in such a dishonest and merciless fashion is actively encouraging those who have served, those who may regret joining and are struggling to find an outlet for their feelings, to stay silent and not speak out, lest they face similar public shaming from ignorant, immature and antipathetic voices.  

So please, Star Wars fans attacking Adam, grow up, learn about history, get some empathy and stop attacking a man who shared the anger of 300 million other Americans and is now helping service members find their voices.  

mever thought i’d get some opinions on that ppost but:

1. while the takoyaki that dimple turned into in the op /was/ eaten by reigen, it was never stated that he /liked/ it. i also dont think reigen evem knew it was dimple in the 1st place, so it was non consensual

2. if u look deep enough, ONE /did/ explore the vore aspect of reigens personality. his sensitive tongue is a metaphor for being anti-vore. however, dimple is into vore. that is an established fact.

Perfect Strangers (Part 3): Nobody Said It Was Easy

Title:  Perfect Strangers (Part 3):  Nobody Said It Was Easy

Author:  Mimi @captain-rogers-beard

Summary:  Bucky Barnes is the consummate ladies man, a different girl every night, no lasting relationships. You are a painfully shy bookworm terrified of getting involved with someone for fear of getting hurt. When the two of you literally run into each other, sparks fly.

Sequel to Three’s Company

Master Post

Characters:  Bucky Barnes x Female Reader, Steve Rogers

Word Count:  2996

Warnings: mild language

Author’s Notes: Thank you to @star-spangled-man-with-a-plan and @climbthatmooselikeatree for your invaluable help and contributions.

***My work is not to be posted on any other sites without my express written permission.***

Keep reading