Apparently you were fine with the status quo as it was...That, apparently, isn't the focus of your personal outage; it's instead that a marginilized group would dare to tell you what you should or shouldn't feel ashamed about.

I wasn't fine with anything. You totally just put words in my mouth.

You actually just demonstrated my biggest issue with why shaming is such a terrible tactic. I am ecstatic that we have have made such a big progression with our society. I am not your enemy at all. But you see me as your enemy, because the way we shame and demonize each other in our discourse has taught us to see that anyone who disagrees with us, even slightly, is our enemy. I am not fighting against you or anyone else who wants gay rights, but I am angry about the tactics that Arthur Chu is encouraging.

You even showed a perfect example of this right here:

You'll also notice that this post has gotten a couple of downvotes now, which I am going to assume is from people who read your comment, but not the very well written article to which this snap links.

It's not because people might disagree with you and the author? They might even share my disdain for the article? No, it has to be that my shitty comment caused those downvotes and people just wouldn't even read the article. It has to be because people are just totally cool with how things are. You just managed to straw-man people who haven't even said a word.

Now, the real reason that marginilized groups are discouraged from harnessing the power of outrage and shame is that it is effective.

Yes it is, in some ways. But is it really changing people's minds? In fact, attacking people's beliefs is more likely to reinforce them rather than change them. What shaming does is shut people up, at least publicly. But they'll go somewhere else, find other people who agree with them or try to bring people into their fold. They aren't going to go away, and one day they will come back. You can't stop the spread of toxic ideas by trying to beat them down, you have to encourage people to change their ideas.

And most of all, shaming is easy. Chu seems to imply that people have been taking the easy way out by trying to be civil, but it's not like that at all. It's very easy to shame and ridicule your opponent. Civility is hard, it takes restraint. It's not easy to have to engage your opponent rationally, especially when that opponent might take a position that is abhorrent to you. They're position might completely enrage you. We all want to go off on people who take the opposite position of something we feel very strongly about.

And the kind of shame Chu is encouraging isn't just shaming, but public shaming. And public shaming, no matter what it is about, is never okay. People have their lives destroyed by it, and oftentimes it's often over very simple misunderstandings. He even basically writes that he thinks shaming people is the only way to help them, but never once does he address the many consequences that come for the person going through the shaming. Making shaming an acceptable practice is going to legitimize mob justice, and that's just unacceptable.

And maybe this is a little too slippery-slope-ish for you, but I worry if this kind of practice is legitimized, people are going to use it to rationalize their own shaming of people they disagree with. Yes, I agree gay marriage is a no-brainer, but a lot of people believe all their beliefs are a no-brainer....

Apparently you were fine with the status quo as it was...That, apparently, isn't the focus of your personal outage; it's instead that a marginilized group would dare to tell you what you should or shouldn't feel ashamed about.

I wasn't fine with anything. You totally just put words in my mouth.

You actually just demonstrated my biggest issue with why shaming is such a terrible tactic. I am ecstatic that we have have made such a big progression with our society. I am not your enemy at all. But you see me as your enemy, because the way we shame and demonize each other in our discourse has taught us to see that anyone who disagrees with us, even slightly, is our enemy. I am not fighting against you or anyone else who wants gay rights, but I am angry about the tactics that Arthur Chu is encouraging.

You even showed a perfect example of this right here:

You'll also notice that this post has gotten a couple of downvotes now, which I am going to assume is from people who read your comment, but not the very well written article to which this snap links.

It's not because people might disagree with you and the author? They might even share my disdain for the article? No, it has to be that my shitty comment caused those downvotes and people just wouldn't even read the article. It has to be because people are just totally cool with how things are. You just managed to straw-man people who haven't even said a word.

Now, the real reason that marginilized groups are discouraged from harnessing the power of outrage and shame is that it is effective.

Yes it is, in some ways. But is it really changing people's minds? In fact, attacking people's beliefs is more likely to reinforce them rather than change them. What shaming does is shut people up, at least publicly. But they'll go somewhere else, find other people who agree with them or try to bring people into their fold. They aren't going to go away, and one day they will come back. You can't stop the spread of toxic ideas by trying to beat them down, you have to encourage people to change their ideas.

And most of all, shaming is easy. Chu seems to imply that people have been taking the easy way out by trying to be civil, but it's not like that at all. It's very easy to shame and ridicule your opponent. Civility is hard, it takes restraint. It's not easy to have to engage your opponent rationally, especially when that opponent might take a position that is abhorrent to you. They're position might completely enrage you. We all want to go off on people who take the opposite position of something we feel very strongly about.

And the kind of shame Chu is encouraging isn't just shaming, but public shaming. And public shaming, no matter what it is about, is never okay. People have their lives destroyed by it, and oftentimes it's often over very simple misunderstandings. He even basically writes that he thinks shaming people is the only way to help them, but never once does he address the many consequences that come for the person going through the shaming. Making shaming an acceptable practice is going to legitimize mob justice, and that's just unacceptable.

And maybe this is a little too slippery-slope-ish for you, but I worry if this kind of practice is legitimized, people are going to use it to rationalize their own shaming of people they disagree with. Yes, I agree gay marriage is a no-brainer, but a lot of people believe all their beliefs are a no-brainer. They walk through life going, "I can't believe everyone is such an idiot, why can't they just see that I'm right?" So very arrogant people are going to start equating their own beliefs with gay marriage, and they'll get together with others that agree with them, and they'll shame anyone they don't like.

Simply put, it's just not okay. Maybe you disagree with me, which is fine. But the virtue of civil discourse is that you and I can disagree without seeing each other as enemies. But it's already very clear that you do see me as your enemy. So how does that help our discourse at all? How is that supposed to help anything get done?