I think if you use your real name on the internet you are doxxing yourself.
And is a bit like being on TV. Everyone see you, but you don’t see them. Some people that see you live alone, others live with their 20 sisters, some people is rich, other live eating from trash cams, some people is radically left, some people is radically right. All of them will read your words as directly to them, and get offended if they can.
To me is something you must not do, like pee on the pool, spit directly up, download something at the same time you are playing PvP or make somebody angry before you ask him help. You must not make your real name visible to others.
Yeah that’s different. It’s not even behaving like a professional, but been nice to others, including people that work in the same field as you…
I was mostly referring to comments outside of professional conflicts of interest (politics et all). I can totally understand an employer taking issue, for example, with an employee bad talking them (or the company products) behind their backs. That’s too related to work to be considered independent (you are indeed using inside information to arrive to those kind of judgements).
Edit: Teiman, that is akin to avoiding PDAs (specially same set PDAs) or other kind of perfectly healthy behaviour in public to avoid offending others or being called for it. I just disagree on the utility of such defensive behaviour. It’s even weirder because you suggest (by your last paragraph) that just showing your name is offensive. When the offensives rest on the actions (I would believe) and people would get offended regardless of the use of a real name…
As long as there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, you should be able to use your name. And if there’s something wrong you should be able to be called on it so you can judge whether your behaviour was appropiate. But this is what I think. It’s obvious I’m on the minority here!!
Giving the 73 yr old “deputy” a gun is a horrible negligence that deserves punishment high up the chain of command. The behavior of the police after the shooting is something else, though. “fuck your breath”… really???
This is looking more and more like a systemic problem…
“Wrong” is such a nebulous and changing standard, though. The internet is forever; what if you express opinions today that become anathema unforeseeably in 25 years (post 9/11 for instance)? What if you have particularly harsh views today that moderate over time? Those original views will still be available for people to search and find indefinitely, as we are now. Think about all of the things written on Usenet 20+ years ago; that is all still here and searchable.
I am currently reading Jon Ronson’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. It’s something I have been thinking a lot about lately, as we move from Twitter scandal to Twitter scandal.
I am not convinced at a larger level social media is actually an on-balance good. Facebook is a Land of a Thousand Lakes with small interlocking pools. Twitter is an ocean full of massive storms and large predatory animals. The stories of lives and reputations ruined is stark reading.
As Juan indicates, while I would like to believe that these things will become no big deal over the next several decades, actually we have been moving in the opposite direction: We are becoming a Scold Society that would make the Puritans proud in our punishments, in not our values.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to get my signboard and placard and head back to the corner.
Yeah, I just hope this is a temporary state of affairs. Basically, once everybody has been through an scandal, they will matter less. What I see now is a generational gap (or two, even) between people like us, used to privacy and who had to learn internet, and people raised on social media.
I personally don’t care people access past views or opinions. People change. Some of our democratic politicians here in Spain did publish articles supporting the fascist dictatorship when it was up, and everybody understands things have changed, and that those people no longer hold those opinions. If people choose to get offended over stuff people said under very different circumstances (pre 9/11, for example) it’s their problem. Suggesting we have to moderate ourselves in public just to avoid future possible offenses is weird, and, to quote your concerns, very 1984ish…
In defense of the american people, I think they voted Obama in part to stop this sort of thing. I think for whatever reason Obama failed to deliver on most stuff on is program. Or perhaps hes a liar and we never intend to do it, but them is a enormeous waste, so I hope not.
Oh, said nothing against American people. The systemic problem I was referring is the culture of lack of accountability in law enforcement. It’s obvious most people are repulsed by things like this…
BTW, this was released through bodycams, again proving it does make it somewhat easy to identify and pursue these kind of violations. Most likely the recent surge in very serious allegations has some correlation to the amount of cameras around.
People get fired all of the time because they said something dumb online, were caught doing something dumb on their facebook when their boss searched for it, etc etc. Maybe your boss feels one way about Ferguson and notices you say something charged about how he feels? Businesses do look at social media these days and if you’re smart, you should not attach anything to your name that you would not be comfortable talking to your boss (or potential boss) about.
Oh and video games are still not considered an adult hobby by many, so i don’t really advertise than i’m a gamer at work.
As far as politicians in the USA go, if you have ever made one non PC comment in your life, it is pretty much assured that your opponent will find it and nail you to the wall for it. In general, there is no such thing as forgiveness when it comes to American politics.
This is going sooo out of topic but… Have you considered maybe you don’t want to work for somebody who would consider your personal opinions over the quality and dedication of your work? Rinohelix was expressing his/her fear that we are verging into a surveillance dystopia, yet comments like yours make me feel people bring the dystopia on themselves through unnecessary fear.
I will never refuse working for somebody just because of their opinions (as long as the work is ethical) and I expect the opposite to be true as well. Otherwise, it’s such a lack of professionalism that it would make me wonder the viability of the given business/employer. I do not believe anybody should live with fear of their employer, and when that happens we are approaching something like wage slavery.
It helps that the kind of firing you describe is unwarranted and discriminatory here, and could have legal liabilities (and even be revoked by judge). It does happen in small businesses, of course, where the owner is too unprofessional and personality driven, but bigger companies with good management stay well away of this (or risk get sued).
believe you are right about American politics, but when the time comes that the current 15 years old run for office, there will be very, very, very few people without embarrassing online comments or non PC behaviour in their digital history.
I’m sure everyone would hope their employer would keep an employee’s personal opinions separate from work, but we know this is not always true. I’m also sure everyone would hope they have the economic wherewithal to leave a job if they think their employer is a dick, but that’s not the case for many people.
Not everyone has the luxury of being so discriminating as to their place of employment. And in some industries, you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find an employer with such an attitude. The company I work for is relatively liberal in comparison to the rest of our industry (banking/finance/real estate), but we still have quite a few restrictions in terms of social networking.
Part of it is it is getting harder to draw a clear and distinct line between professional roles and private life. Take Adam Orth, former employee of Microsoft. When he was tweeting with his friend about the always online aspect of the XBone was that a private or public conversation and was he speaking as Adam Orth the private individual or Microsoft employee? The nature of the medium (like Twitter) makes these questions difficult to answer.
As I said above, if the subject includes anything work related (anything you might only know because of work) it’s not only private, it’s a conversation you shouldn’t even have in private (except with other people in the know). Not even to your close friends or partners. This for me includes talking about the employing company in general.
"Adding police officers to any situation is going to increase the likelihood of violence, and there's nothing we can do to change that except reconsider the conditions under which we add police. That's because, in any situation, we've given police officers extraordinary powers and wide latitude to 'stop criminals,' [B]without spending a lot of time considering what we mean by 'criminals,' and how far we're willing to go to stop them[/B]."
One of the throughlines in this grim litany — the Michael Browns and Eric Garners and Ramarley Grahams and Walter Scotts — is that their encounters with police were ostensibly for minor infractions. Michael Brown allegedly stole cigarellos from a convenience store. Eric Garner was selling loosies on the corner. Ramarley Graham had weed in his pocket. Walter Scott may have been scared by a child support payment or perhaps because he didn’t have registration for the car he was driving.
It’s crucial to remember that all these calamities play out against a backdrop of falling — even record-low — crime. As the anxieties around the kinds of crime that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s recedes, there’s more space for us to ask what exactly it is we want our police to do, and whether stopping a jaywalker here or a person selling cigarettes there is worth introducing the prospect of deadly violence.
As the anxieties around the kinds of crime that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s recedes, there’s more space for us to ask what exactly it is we want our police to do, and whether stopping a jaywalker here or a person selling cigarettes there is worth introducing the prospect of deadly violence.
Well, I think I see the point with a lot of that, but in terms of Michael Brown, he committed theft. While only petty theft, it’s not like you can just let it go. I’m not sure how the police could simply gloss over it as though it weren’t a crime. The store owner has rights too, to not have folks come in and rob him.
I thought it was pretty well established the cop had no idea he had robbed anything. Or did he change his story after the fact and now he’s just an idiot?
“Oh look, a robbery suspect, I’ll just tell him to get out of the street. Not, you know, arrest him or anything.”
It’s not hard to imagine that there are consequences to letting minor infractions go. The broken window theory/approach isn’t completely bunk.
How many people with more serious warrants are caught in the course of enforcing a more minor law/ordinance? What’s the effect on the behavior of individuals if they see infractions and petty crimes constantly occuring with impunity in their neighborhood?
I think what’s needed is a police force that is more cognizant of suspects as citizens, not necessarily a force that lets minor incidents slide. As to “introducing the prospect of deadly violence”, it’s sadly the case that that prospect is introduced in any arrest situation, given the prevalence of guns in our society.
That’s true (responding to Timex), but I think the section I quoted above is asking for further exploration and rethinking of how our society polices. It doesn’t have to be a binary option of not pursuing misdemeanors versus sending in armed police. Perhaps there are other options like having a percentage of the police force equipped only with non-lethal tools and they are the ones that respond to misdemeanor crimes.
As the first line of my citation indicates, “Adding police officers to any situation is going to increase the likelihood of violence”. American society needs to seriously consider that implication moving forward.
