

Ask HN: Is there a word for this phenomena? - Karunamon

A recent dealing on another board got me thinking about a concept which I will now try to detail.<p>Imagine something that society in general finds (and actually is) distasteful. Racism. Sexism. Pedophilia. Things of that nature.<p>Then, you find an example where this label is being incorrectly applied, or where there are mitigating circumstances that people are perhaps not considering. People getting the wrong idea about something being racism, for instance.<p>You then make a comment stating your concerns. In the replies to this comment, your concerns are dismissed (and depending on the site, whatever form of karma is used is being subtracted from you en masse, thanks to hivemind effect), and it's put out that implicitly or explicitly, you are a member of the distasteful class for speaking up, which also carries the connotation that your thoughts on the matter can be ignored.<p>1)You point out that the black person who got a huge prison sentence for a crime probably deserved the sentence given the circumstances. You are implied to be an ignorant racist.<p>2)You point out that the female CEO of a large company has done a horrible job, back it up with facts and figures. You are implied to be a sexist pig.<p>3)You point out that the USA has somewhat puritanical views on sex and the age of consent, given the laws in other countries. You are implied to be a sick pedophile.<p>Etc.<p>Now compound that with the fact you're tarred with this "ism" brush, anything you say in defense of your position afterwards is either minimized or ignored.<p>1)You tell the detractors that this black person murdered 5 people in cold blood and deserves the death penalty by any measure of law. Why should we listen to you? You're a racist. Your opinion is invalid.<p>2)You tell the detractors that this female CEO was greatly inferior to not only her forerunner, but other female CEO's of comparable companies. You're just being sexist. Why should we listen to you?<p>3)You look up the age of consent laws for other countries, and note that adults sexually taking advantage of the younger kids hasn't become a problem. You're probably a pedophile who has a horse in this race. Why should we listen to you?<p>You can see what I mean. My question is, does this phenomenon have a term that can be applied to it (so that I can refer to it in the future without writing long-winded descriptions like this), and is there a way to remove the stink from yourself, once you've been smacked with the dead, smelly fish of "You're probably a member of that which you defend".
======
mchannon
I don't think there is a single word for this phenomenon itself. The closest
term for the respondent is "narcissistic rage". Perhaps "narcissistic
groupthink" for the larger phenomenon of making the OP a heretic or pariah.

As to what you can do, most internet forumgoers don't seem to have a very deep
recollection of the past misdeeds of others; as cruel and shallow as
commenters get, they're also faster to forget. Unless you dwell in a small or
focused community, pretending it never happened is the best way to move
forward- preferably shifting your time to a more enlightened forum, or, better
yet, coming up with the next big thing.

------
orangecat
Arguments as soldiers: <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers>

------
frou_dh
This page seems a good jumping off point:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies>

I had a scan and these may be of interest:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association>

~~~
poppysan
Yeah, I think it may be a combo punch of poisoning the well (rage levels are
already high from talks of racism) and Appeal to motive (why are you defending
the racists?).

Also there are some unspoken social rules that many forget when online. When
in a very sensitive (emotional) conversation, being logical with no appeal to
the emotion can appear cold, or excusing of the behavior that they are
condemning (correctly or not).

------
Tangaroa
I'm not aware of a term for this specific behaviour (other than "a mob"), but
it reminds me of:

Party Line: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_line_of_the_party>

Self-reinforcing groupthink:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_reinforcement>

Cognitive dissonance technically means to believe two contradictory things at
the same time, but I've seen the term used to describe the effect when
someone's beliefs are threatened by new evidence and they either change their
beliefs or ignore the evidence:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance>

Some guy on slashdot once noted that people tend to believe the first thing
they read about any subject. In the case of these forums, that is the original
post. This belief is reinforced by subsequent comments agreeing with the
original poster, and from the trust and other social effects from the original
poster's earlier writings. Apparently, this belief can be raised to such a
point that anyone disagreeing is presumed to be wrong by the majority of users
moved to rate the dissenting comment.

Another commenter mentioned emotions versus logic. From similar experiences,
I've found that people don't like to have their outrages and sob sessions
interrupted by a skeptic questioning whether the circumstances justify such an
emotional response. I'm not aware of whether there is a term for this
reactionary dismissal or not.

As for how to respond, I know of no positive strategy other than to to have
people on your side that the community trusts, but I consider that dishonest.
Responding to your accuser in kind with similar emotions and accusations going
the other way might be justifiable and entertaining but the irony will be
unappreciated and you will dig yourself a deeper hole. Defending yourself
lends justifications to the attacks; notice how society has decided that "some
of my best friends are black/gay" is something that bigots say rather than
evidence against bigotry. At the least you can lend no ammunition to the
charges, stick to the facts, and try not to be rude.

