I think it is a mistake to think that most people were actually offended and didn't get the joke. There are definitely much more offensive things out on the internet than the examples in the article.
I think it's much more likely that people revel in seeing someone go down; the article clearly alluded to this sadistic aspect I think. As soon as there is enough critical mass for a public shaming, people will jump on the bandwagon.
What needs to change is that this kind of public shaming on the internet should be looked down upon in the future, just at is now in real life. The first step is for employers not to be so spineless to immediately fire an employee that is talked about.
I think it's much more likely that people revel in seeing someone go down; the article clearly alluded to this sadistic aspect I think.
This is possible. But I think it's less about this and more about status marking. Joining the pile on is often a quick, cheap way to demonstrate that you care about the right things.
I wonder if there's a distinction that needs to be made between offending people and hurting people.
From my self-confessed but unavoidable smug vantage point of white privilege I wonder if being offended is something that needs to be disregarded. I'm trying to remember how it felt to be 'offended' myself and whether anyone other than me should have cared. Is it actually a form of power when one can choose to be offended and know that you can affect the actions of others by doing so?
Genuinely hurting people (emotionally) on the other hand is something different and I'd need to think a lot more deeply about that.
I have some sympathy for a company whose Senior Director of Corporate Communications instigates a massive PR disaster by joking about Africans having AIDS on Twitter.
This makes me wonder if PR is actually effective, and not a massive money sink. Would that company really lose any noticeable amount of customers over that Twitter shitstorm? If so, how come that no one apparently got hurt over ACTA/SOPA and Snowdengate? I don't see companies losing significant business over trying to destroy the Internet itself.
Because they have good PR departments. A good PR department makes you forget that there ever was an issue, or if you remember the issue, you forget that the company was ever involved.
PR is an interesting job function in that if they do their job correctly, you forget that they exist. It's much like security in that regard. If you have a bad PR department, you'll know, because you'll be constantly under-siege in the media. (Uber comes to mind.)
I think it's much more likely that people revel in seeing someone go down; the article clearly alluded to this sadistic aspect I think. As soon as there is enough critical mass for a public shaming, people will jump on the bandwagon.
What needs to change is that this kind of public shaming on the internet should be looked down upon in the future, just at is now in real life. The first step is for employers not to be so spineless to immediately fire an employee that is talked about.