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....

Holy crap this is awful. This entire article is dedicated to the idea that shaming people is somehow entirely responsible for such a big breakthrough in gay rights. It's no secret that sometimes you have to get mad and stick up for what you want, but shaming has had outrageous effect on our discourse and how we talk to each other.

Who decides what we become outraged out? Who decides what counts as bigotry and what doesn't? It used to be easier to define, but now there's people who try to see it anywhere they go, shaming perfectly good people without a bigoted bone in their body, just to lash out for the sake of lashing out.

This whole thing is a petty rationalization of being a bully. Even if the author here is correct that these shaming tactics worked (which I don't think he is), does that really mean it went the right way? Does shaming people actually change their minds? Are we actually changing attitudes or are we just saying "shut the fuck up you bigot or we'll ruin your fucking life"?

Just because you might be in the right doesn't mean you have the right to act like a bully. Everyone thinks they're in the right. If we truly accepted that this is an acceptable practice then anyone and everyone would just act like a childish bully to get what they want. He's criticizing people who want to be the calm rational ones who promote civility, but those are the people we need to get stuff done. Those are the people who actually sit between all the childish screaming and make things happen in society.

You want a world where we can just get outraged and demand what we want? Welcome to the club. We're all outraged and want things to change. But the values we uphold as a free speech society mean that we have to sacrifice other things. If you think shaming people is an acceptable practice, then you're going to shut down discourse. And the important thing about open discourse is that it forces us to talk about things that might make us extremely uncomfortable. Those are the type of things that might outrage us on the surface, but might actually be benefiting us to talk about.

Sorry, but I just see this article as purely disgusting.

Well, as far as my career is concerned, I'm a disgruntled entertainment/music industry employee. My real expertise is in music, which I've studied for half my life. I went to college and got my degree in music, but also had an option in Music Business. Personally, I chose it as sort of a back-up plan and thought it might be really great for me, but I've since discovered that being an artist and the business of art can be two very different things. Now it is just more of a way for me to meet the right kind of people and get my foot in the right doors. Thankfully, I'm pretty good at whatever job I take, so that helps out a lot too.

I've played guitar for half my life, both classical and contemporary. I extensively studied music theory in college and worked alongside some really great guitar teachers. I'm certainly not a prodigy, but I've worked pretty damn hard and I think I'm pretty fucking decent at it. My real dream would have been to study composition and even go get my Masters, but unfortunately that wasn't in the cards for me. Now I just spend my life figuring out how to make a career out of it!

Honestly what upsets me more about this whole ordeal than anything is the fact that we are putting so much damn time into it. We've had this debate a million times and it always ends in a pretty similar fashion. Southerners accuse everyone criticizing the flag of being liberal elitists, and everyone else accuses the Southerners of being ignorant bigots.

Personally, I don't care for the flag and I don't think it should be treated as anything other than historical. But I've met many people who hold that flag near and dear and I know that not all those people are racists. I disagreed with them, sure, but I knew that segregation, slavery, or whatever was not something they stood for. So that's how this argument always ends, just a bunch of people getting angry at each other until they tire themselves out, then resenting each other.

I remember watching Jon Stewart's impassioned speech and really seeing the anger in his eyes and it was very moving. But after less than a week it seems like we are already at each other's throats over non-issues. Stewart gets the impression a lot that we like to ignore issues like these or dismiss them, but I think that's just the impression he gets from what he sees. Personally, it seems more to me like we care so much about these issues, that we end up arguing about things like the flag so we can demonize each other instead of working towards solving the actual problems. The flag is its own issue, but it's not the most pertinent one right now. I really liked his speech, but I'm starting to wonder if it will end up doing more harm than good.

There's unfortunately not going to be any way to prevent assholes from invading. I think banning people who cause trouble should be a last resort measure.

The difference between here and Voat is that this community is trying to foster more civility and maturity rather than focusing so heavily on open speech, but on the internet that's never easy to maintain. I'm not sure what the right way to go about any of that is. I'm hesitant to say banning people is the solution to all those problems because I like the idea of people being able to speak freely even if I dislike what they have to say or the manner in which they say it entirely, but I also like the community here and I don't want that to be lost.

I have no idea what the proper solution is, but maybe a place that moderates trouble-makers while allowing opinions to flow is a good idea, I just don't know how we best decide to set those rules and boundaries. I honestly can't say though, I've never managed an internet forum and I don't really have much of a desire to for that reason. I think the best solution is to ultimately just tackle the issue from a social angle: discourage that kind of behavior and foster the right kind of community. Be open to calling people out when they're acting like assholes, and also be welcoming to people who come in with the right kind of attitude. Rules mean very little of the community turns toxic, because then toxic people end up setting the rules.