public shaming
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
oh i read a news article just today about a 12 year old getting publicly shamed to teach him a lesson, lemme find it
http://www.wgrz.com/videos/news/nation/2014/01/17/4575027/
basically he'd been cussing his teacher and his mother made him stand at the side of a road with a sign that said he'd been cussing.. to make him take responsibility for it I guess.
do i think it's ethical? *shrug* I dunno, but the punishment is fairly harmless and the boy probably won't suffer any long term effects from it. and he likely won't do it again. better than beating the kid~!
as for online fat shaming? i had to look that one up..OMG. cruel!!
http://www.wgrz.com/videos/news/nation/2014/01/17/4575027/
basically he'd been cussing his teacher and his mother made him stand at the side of a road with a sign that said he'd been cussing.. to make him take responsibility for it I guess.
do i think it's ethical? *shrug* I dunno, but the punishment is fairly harmless and the boy probably won't suffer any long term effects from it. and he likely won't do it again. better than beating the kid~!
as for online fat shaming? i had to look that one up..OMG. cruel!!
Bring back the pillory! J/k
I think that parents and teachers who would publicly shame a child only succeed in making themselves look like failures.
I think it's more important to educate than to shame. Positive reinforcement is more beneficial than negative reinforcement to the psyche. We should educate and inspire people to want to do good and be their best .
So I think that shaming in itself is detrimental to individuals and society and not really effective.
I think that parents and teachers who would publicly shame a child only succeed in making themselves look like failures.
I think it's more important to educate than to shame. Positive reinforcement is more beneficial than negative reinforcement to the psyche. We should educate and inspire people to want to do good and be their best .
So I think that shaming in itself is detrimental to individuals and society and not really effective.
Agree. Public shaming a child is as much about shaming the parents for not disciplining them well.
When I was at school public shaming took the form of standing in the front corner of the classroom with one's nose touching a chalk-mark on the wall. It seemed like an effective punishment then; but now children seem to be completely shameless, so I don't know if public shaming would do anything - they are more likely to be smug about it, making things worse.
yeah, i'm noticing that parents who do it by say posting something on youtube where they shame their child, are getting negative feedback and criticism. So, if the parent is being shamed for shaming, is shaming a child really effective?
On the other hand, shaming can make a child embarrassed enough not to do it again. I grew up in a stricter culture, and shaming in some ways worked. It made teens or young adults avoid doing stupid things that could get them hurt or in trouble. Sometimes, talking to a child or young adult does not work. It's tough to be a parent today when they're so many things competing for a child's attention and respect. So, parents resort to shaming because they sometimes find that constantly repeated reminders to not do something, or discussions of consequences doesn't always seem to work.
I don't know. I'm not a parent so take my opinion for what it's worth, but shaming just seems like a lazy way to approach the problem. It's probably more important to foster healthy self esteem and self discipline from the beginning than to shame the kid when he or she makes a mistake. But I advocate for empowering people and building them up. It just seems like people commit heinous acts and crimes because deep down they feel inferior in some way and it is an attempt to compensate--so in that way it seems backwards to me to shame a kid for messing up.
Just seems shaming is a result of frustration and anger.
Seems more destructive than constructive.
Just seems shaming is a result of frustration and anger.
Seems more destructive than constructive.
Last edited:
Personally, as a child I think I preferred corporal punishment: a couple of good whacks on the palm at school, or on the butt at home. A couple of times my parents did the talking thing and it seemed worse - it made you feel isolated and more peeved.
I think shaming is a psychological, or emotional punishment: I'd prefer physical punishment any day.
Like many children, I received both growing up. I had corporal punishment and shaming together in front of the classroom. Still remember the horror
. I hated corporal punishment. They would spank us in front of everyone and put us in the corner. So, yeah, did not like either. However, public verbal scolding was better any day. However, being publicly humiliated verbally in school was better in comparison to corporal. However it was usually demeaning and had a lasting effect. Mild to moderate scolding by parents made you more cautious and responsible, and didn't have as many consequences. Yeah, I did prefer scolding from parents vs. teachers. When teachers did it, it was meant to be humiliating and embarrassing and hurt worse for some reason. When parents did it, at least it was at home, so no one witnessed the shame. lol
Last edited:
Ugh. No. I don't like it.
It might stop them from repeating the offence but I don't think it solves the problem and, also, how many times can you shame someone before they become shameless?
It might stop them from repeating the offence but I don't think it solves the problem and, also, how many times can you shame someone before they become shameless?
So therefore if I could hit people and shame them enough, I would rule the world, right?
Getting hit taught me to want to hit back. It didn't teach me the right thing to do.
A couple times I did fight back a little and it only escalated which also taught me that I'd have to be strong if I wanted to turn the tables and be the one in charge. I'd have to be come strong enough to hit and shame them into seeing my way just as they did to me.
See how that works? Where does the foundation get in? At some points it was like "If you're just right because you're hitting me, I guess I'll have to hit you back some day. Maybe even kill you."
I don't think that is the intended effect is it?
Getting hit taught me to want to hit back. It didn't teach me the right thing to do.
A couple times I did fight back a little and it only escalated which also taught me that I'd have to be strong if I wanted to turn the tables and be the one in charge. I'd have to be come strong enough to hit and shame them into seeing my way just as they did to me.
See how that works? Where does the foundation get in? At some points it was like "If you're just right because you're hitting me, I guess I'll have to hit you back some day. Maybe even kill you."
I don't think that is the intended effect is it?
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
I don't agree with public shaming and nor do I agree with corporal punishment. I've been through both and they only caused me to become more rebellious and insolent. I have come across people who believed such things were a positive influence in their life, but they seem to be in the minority.
As [MENTION=564]acd[/MENTION] said, it's better to create an atmosphere of positive reinforcement. Still, I'm not a parent and so can't really pass judgements on how people raise their children.
As [MENTION=564]acd[/MENTION] said, it's better to create an atmosphere of positive reinforcement. Still, I'm not a parent and so can't really pass judgements on how people raise their children.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
I did become strong enough to hit and shame those who did the same to me. I came close to doing even worse on more than one occasion. There's a lot of self-destruction and isolation on such a road. I was lucky enough to get off it before it ruined my life.
Public shaming would work in the past, when there was such a thing as shame, in a virtuous sense. If someone would be shamed, they would feel a genuine remorse and change their behaviour.
But today it seems that there is no shame anymore, or at least the good one. You can't have shame if you don't have honour and integrity.
But today it seems that there is no shame anymore, or at least the good one. You can't have shame if you don't have honour and integrity.
So how would you deal with someone who continually refuses to be either reasonable, or reasoned with - and is disadvantaging others?
(Incarceration; ostrecisation; medication; exclusion; reprogramming; etc. come to mind).
It's case by case. By and large I am against it. I personally do not like it all and would not like it done at all, but those are just my own morals and on a "mild" situation like this, those are not universal morals.
If I had my own children I would never do it to them. The reason being is if they were anything like me (and they would be as they'd have 1/2 my genes) they would not respond well to that sort of thing at all. It would teach them a lesson and they'd never dare do it again. However, it would very likely greatly upset them and do more harm than good. Further, there'd be much better ways to get the message across.
Other children though, it would be taken much better and ultimately do what it was intended to do. So long as afterwords it is explained and there is a soft discussion to kind of "debrief" everything. A purely harsh take doesn't do any person good.
It really comes down to what type of children they're dealing with, the issue at hand, and of course the intent of the parent. If public shaming were to be done, it would have to be done in such a way where the person doing it has minimized as much "personal satisfaction" out of doing the act. Not doing so would likely cause the purpose of it to be severely overblown and thus likely harmful.
If I had my own children I would never do it to them. The reason being is if they were anything like me (and they would be as they'd have 1/2 my genes) they would not respond well to that sort of thing at all. It would teach them a lesson and they'd never dare do it again. However, it would very likely greatly upset them and do more harm than good. Further, there'd be much better ways to get the message across.
Other children though, it would be taken much better and ultimately do what it was intended to do. So long as afterwords it is explained and there is a soft discussion to kind of "debrief" everything. A purely harsh take doesn't do any person good.
It really comes down to what type of children they're dealing with, the issue at hand, and of course the intent of the parent. If public shaming were to be done, it would have to be done in such a way where the person doing it has minimized as much "personal satisfaction" out of doing the act. Not doing so would likely cause the purpose of it to be severely overblown and thus likely harmful.
To better rephrase what I was saying, I think in the present days shaming as a practice of influencing and changing behaviour is pretty useless.
The kind of shaming -which is good - I reffer to is the shame that is somehow due to moral and ethical education. The act of "shaming" is to be based on the moral and ethical principles that the respective child has broken. This usually produces a genuine remorse and its more powerful then any physical punishment.
But if the respective person doesn't have any kind of moral and ethical duties in a prescriptive sense, then the act of appeal to shame-meaning that actually the appeal is on the integrity of that person- its entirely useless, because one can not be ashamed on something that it has not any value whatsoever for him. That is, when shaming is based on the values of one, that person most likely will change its behaviour to be in line with its value system.
That been said, most of the acts of shaming, and especially public shaming, don't have any effect.
Well, it doesn't have to look in a certain way. If there is strong ethical education in a person, the shame will occur naturally.
The person just had to be remembered "Look, you did this, and you know its wrong", and she or he will feel a genuine remorse for his bad behaviour and will try honestly to raise up to the values that has been taught to him.
When a acts of public shamings take place, these usually make sense in more traditional countries, where tradition and the people in general have a very tied relationship with the individual.
For example, the british are known to be very patriots in respect for their country (and also many other countries, like Romania is). Now this commitment to the country, in this case England, its a value, that it is taught to the child since when he's little. When he grows up, he will most likely hold very dear that value to him, which is to love and protect and care for his country. The value will be so powerful to him, that if he will broke it and fail to it, a painful shame will crush him, and make him feel sory for his behaviour. That shame will be enough powerful to make him change his behaviour.
But sometimes, and many times, the respective person will have to be remembered and "shamed" for his bad behaviour, in light of the values that he has been taught, because he himself will not do that.
Edit:
Also, the idea of honour and integrety make sense only and only if the person have some values to keep, and has a shame to run of in case he will not keep the respective values.
Last edited:
If someone is doing something that you think is wrong, then you should be putting your efforts towards giving them that moral foundation and making them understand why it is wrong. Even if you shame someone into stopping a behaviour, you haven't given them anything. You've only told them that some inherent piece of them is evil and that other people shouldn't see it. As others have mentioned, this is not good for the psychological health and moral wealth of society.
I understand that in the case of children, they won't pick up on things sometimes. If it's decided that they are going to be punished, I think the punishment should match the deed so that a connection as to why the deed is wrong can be made more easily. E.g. if a child steals another child's belongings, they should have their belongings confiscated. Or if a child makes a huge mess, then they should have to be the one to clean it up.
All of this being said, in the case of adults or older children, if someone is lacking perspective, it can be helpful to bring a third party in who can divulge their perspective on the situation and help the wrongdoer understand that what they are doing is wrong, and that it's not necessarily a minority consensus that wouldn't have wider social implications if they were to repeat their behaviour or have their actions be known about publicly. The person who is being criticized might even seek the input of more people afterwards. I think it is important that individual desires for privacy are respected; it is also important that creating a condemning and "trapping" atmosphere in which an individual cannot acquire any support for themselves to facilitate fair discussion, is avoided. I think that removing social support is highly psychologically damaging and is unethical.
In a way we are all being shamed publicly every day by Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. , and generally word spreads quite quickly, so I think people are more desensitized to the idea of their private matters and reputations becoming public now than they used to be.
Personally, I was a sensitive kid, especially when it came to criticism and embarrassment in front of others. I can remember every "Shh!" and call-out made by my teachers since the beginning of primary school. I feel like others socially compromise me all the time even though most of the time it's probably not on purpose or something I am being oversensitive to, so maybe I am more empathetic towards this sort of thing. If publicly shaming a serial killer proved to be effective, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it in terms of ethics or effectiveness, but depending on how it was done, I might think something like, "We could have done this more tastefully." If the "public" that people are made to face in any of these circumstances is a group of adults who will criticize maturely and withhold the boos and the jeering, that sounds doable to me.
I understand that in the case of children, they won't pick up on things sometimes. If it's decided that they are going to be punished, I think the punishment should match the deed so that a connection as to why the deed is wrong can be made more easily. E.g. if a child steals another child's belongings, they should have their belongings confiscated. Or if a child makes a huge mess, then they should have to be the one to clean it up.
All of this being said, in the case of adults or older children, if someone is lacking perspective, it can be helpful to bring a third party in who can divulge their perspective on the situation and help the wrongdoer understand that what they are doing is wrong, and that it's not necessarily a minority consensus that wouldn't have wider social implications if they were to repeat their behaviour or have their actions be known about publicly. The person who is being criticized might even seek the input of more people afterwards. I think it is important that individual desires for privacy are respected; it is also important that creating a condemning and "trapping" atmosphere in which an individual cannot acquire any support for themselves to facilitate fair discussion, is avoided. I think that removing social support is highly psychologically damaging and is unethical.
In a way we are all being shamed publicly every day by Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. , and generally word spreads quite quickly, so I think people are more desensitized to the idea of their private matters and reputations becoming public now than they used to be.
Personally, I was a sensitive kid, especially when it came to criticism and embarrassment in front of others. I can remember every "Shh!" and call-out made by my teachers since the beginning of primary school. I feel like others socially compromise me all the time even though most of the time it's probably not on purpose or something I am being oversensitive to, so maybe I am more empathetic towards this sort of thing. If publicly shaming a serial killer proved to be effective, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it in terms of ethics or effectiveness, but depending on how it was done, I might think something like, "We could have done this more tastefully." If the "public" that people are made to face in any of these circumstances is a group of adults who will criticize maturely and withhold the boos and the jeering, that sounds doable to me.