51
52

Dalhousie suspends 13 dentistry students over Facebook page (thechronicleherald.ca)

ScotiaTide が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (66子コメント)

Be careful everyone. The standard for accountability is no longer your own actions or even words, but your associations.

Police every reddit sub you subscribe to and every facebook group you like or join. Anything said by anyone on any of them can be used to burn you down to the ground if the wrong person can link you to the account.

[–]SorcerorDealmakerElectoral Reform 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I must be missing something. Weren't they suspended because of their words?

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

All 13 were suspended (every single person that accepted a facebook invitation to the group, regardless of participation level). As with any facebook group, we can imagine that there were some very active members and some that joined on a whim and just didn't bother much with the group thereafter.

[–]Allthefriendsyouhave 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Were any of the 13 inactive? It sounds like you know.
The only thing I could find was the screen shot of the vote on who in their class they'd rather hate fuck and everyone in the group had seen it and 8 had voted.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Beyond being a bit over the top, how is this truly different than ever before?

If you hang around with 'trouble-makers' as a child, teachers/adults etc typically start thinking you're one of them as well, and treat you as such.

If you're hanging around a group of people, and one of them committed a crime, and is arrested while you're standing there, you're probably going to get questioned.

'guilt by association' has been a thing for a very long time.

“The committee will assess the situation of each individual and ensure that any individual recommended for graduation will have complied with the professionalism requirements of the academic program."

People like to draw equivalency between a 'private' facebook group, and a private real life conversation. Let's pretend it was a real life group conversation, happening in a lab, or in a hall between classes.

If the wrong person overhears, you're going to get in trouble; it could get brought to a dean, or a prof etc.... the whole group. Even if you didn't say a word, you're going to questioned, because you were right there, potentially involved, potentially said something.

It's important to remember that when talking on the internet, even in a private conversation, its a kin to whispering in an aircraft hanger filled shoulder to shoulder with people. If someone overhears you, a lot of people get and up learning about your conversation. It being in writing makes the information even more easy to move.

Right now, everyone is in trouble. They will assess each individual's role and respond accordingly, by the sounds of it.

It would be unfair to truly punish someone who did not take part.

However, it should certainly be used a learning experience for those only 'associated' with a group. If you don't want to get labelled X, don't hang around with a bunch of people who are X.

[–]TriangleDimesOntario 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (9子コメント)

If the wrong person overhears, you're going to get in trouble; it could get brought to a dean, or a prof etc.... the whole group.

Not necessarily, it would go into a he-said-she-said sort of situation and the utter unimportance of it would become apparent after 10 minutes. The dynamic changes completely when the message is screen-capped and ran in the news. I think that's the important part. It's difficult to "prove" levels of association with someone. "Hanging out" with someone, even if you are close friends, holds less weight than someone who is visibly subscribed to a list, even if they never check it or check it passively. It's about what can be proven and what can be inferred, and ultimately implied.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not necessarily, it would go into a he-said-she-said sort of situation and the utter unimportance of it would become apparent after 10 minutes.

Quite possibly.

The dynamic changes completely when the message is screen-capped and ran in the news. I think that's the important part. It's difficult to "prove" levels of association with someone. "Hanging out" with someone, even if you are close friends, holds less weight than someone who is visibly subscribed to a list, even if they never check it or check it passively. It's about what can be proven and what can be inferred, and ultimately implied.

True. This is also good for those clearing up those who weren't participating. "I didn't say that" is much clearer when there are no comments in your name.

[–]TriangleDimesOntario 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think the real problem here is with inferrance. "You're in this group, which MEANS..." as if to say they had the moral duty to question or stamp out this sort of talk. Or you're using this to imply intent, or read their mind, which right away is just madness. Like in the first example, you can't "prove" a level of friendship, or whether they agree, but now they feel like they can because you had to click a button. I don't agree with that.

There might be a dude in here who never checks his Facebook, subscribed to something a friend sent him, and now he's suspended because they needed a blanket move to make people happy. It's just "guilty by association," which is something I don't believe in. It's a shit-tier political move.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (6子コメント)

as if to say they had the moral duty to question or stamp out this sort of talk.

Do they not, even to a degree? If they don't, why don't they?

What sort of values are we creating when people feel no need, and society gives them no duty to say, to a friend, "hey, talking about drugging and hate fucking someone is kinda screwed up dude... if that's all this facebook group is, it's not really my thing"?

It's just "guilty by association," which is something I don't believe in.

It's important to see the end result. If people who were not actively involved are punished, that's not ok, and is truly guilt by association, and in that case I agree with you.

Right now, the group is being questioned to figure out who did what. I expect that those who did nothing, will be held to the appropriate level of accountability. That is, this is a learning experience. Don't associate with assholes if you don't want people to think you're an asshole. If you see people being an asshole, don't feed it. If you're a position where you can, challenge people who are being assholes.

[–]TriangleDimesOntario 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Do they not, even to a degree? If they don't, why don't they?

Do you have a moral obligation to debate your racist grandmother every chance you get? Do you have the moral obligation to get someone fired because they're uncomfortable with public displays of homosexuality? If you see a Black Muslim on the street calling for the extinction of the white race, do you need to go over there and debate them every time?

Right now, the group is being questioned to figure out who did what.

No; right now, they're all suspended, putting their academic standing and careers at risk. As I understand it, it was being handled internally before but it wasn't fast enough so they decided to use the volatile opinions of the public as a weapon, which rushed the school to make a quick decision to save face.

I expect that those who did nothing, will be held to the appropriate level of accountability.

And see here's where the problem lies: to hear you tell it in your first response, it almost sounds like you believe they're guilty because they didn't fight against it.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you have a moral obligation to debate your racist grandmother every chance you get?

I used the word 'degree'. Am I going to debate grandma? No. It's pointless, basically no good can come from it. The degree of obligation I have IMO is to not laugh and encourage the jokes. Some people will get up and leave. We can debate if we did enough, sure.

At the end of the day, grandma is allowed to be racist. However, I shouldn't provide anything that could be thought of as an acceptance or encouragement of those views.

Do you have the moral obligation to get someone fired because they're uncomfortable with public displays of homosexuality?

This far too vague. Have the actually acted inappropriately due to their lack of comfort? Is it reflecting badly on my profession, my workplace, or harming a co-worker? Have they just told me they are uncomfortable PDAs?

If you see a Black Muslim on the street calling for the extinction of the white race, do you need to go over there and debate them every time?

Again, degree, and situation. I was speaking in terms of people you are associated with. So family and coworker is fine, but random person on the street is a whole different thing. I wouldn't recommend a heated debate with a random person, especially one espousing such views (we're not talking about a dog person vs cat person debate here). The degree of responsibility there would be to not provide an audience for those views to espoused. People have a right to speak, but not a right to an audience.

it almost sounds like you believe they're guilty because they didn't fight against it.

Nope. For those who didn't participate, but didn't do anything, it should be used an learning experience. They're complacency and attachment provided an audience. People need to be mindful of what they're associating with, and how that can reflect, rightly or wrongly, on them. In this case, the university was implicated as well. This is a lesson too.

I played very high level sports. Something that was always drilled in my head was that whenever the uniform was on, or team travel gear etc, I was not just representing myself, but the team. My behaviour needed to be stepped up to represent the team properly.

My confusion with this situation stems from how this whole situation could have been avoided. Don't affiliate yourself with the university if you're going to do something stupid. If you don't support those jokes, don't sit there and listen them. If you don't want to get lumped in with the assholes, don't hang out with the assholes. The internet is anonymous, until its not.

[–]TriangleDimesOntario 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I used the word 'degree'. Am I going to debate grandma? No. It's pointless, basically no good can come from it. The degree of obligation I have IMO is to not laugh and encourage the jokes.

Why? How many rape jokes lead to rape?

This far too vague. Have the actually acted inappropriately due to their lack of comfort?

No, you're getting away from the point. We are talking about the ones who didn't laugh or respond to certain jokes. You implied that even by them being there and not saying anything, they are in approval of it. Or they have something to do with it. You asked why they don't have a moral obligation to do or say something, and I have you examples. If someone doesn't like something but doesn't do anything about it are they more innocent or more guilty than someone who did? And what right do you have to police that behavior?

I played very high level sports. Something that was always drilled in my head was that whenever the uniform was on, or team travel gear etc, I was not just representing myself, but the team. My behaviour needed to be stepped up to represent the team properly.

Yeah but they weren't on campus and they can't represent a "class." They weren't wearing a uniform. They weren't in the public. They weren't representing anything, and yet people want them to represent dentists and rapists.

Don't affiliate yourself with the university if you're going to do something stupid.

So if they did not use the class name in the Facebook group, you would have no problem with this?

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why? How many rape jokes lead to rape?

So things are only rude, crude etc if they lead to a crime? Morals and ethics go well beyond whether act X was criminal or not. I'd say that's a really, really low bar. Maybe I'm more concerned with morals/ethics... I'm ok with that.

No, you're getting away from the point.

No I'm not. You provided an example that was really vague, so I didn't know how to respond.

If someone doesn't like something but doesn't do anything about it are they more innocent or more guilty than someone who did?

Less (interested to see how far you'll go here). I haven't said otherwise. You seem to just be trying to trap me or something. I did ask why we don't have a moral obligation. I think that all people should constantly be trying to up their moral obligations. That was an incredibly general comment asking why we don't have that obligation. I acknowledge that we don't have it currently, uniformly, across situations. I asked why that is.

Yeah but they weren't on campus and they can't represent a "class." They weren't wearing a uniform. They weren't in the public. They weren't representing anything, and yet people want them to represent dentists and rapists.

That's not true. It's far less disconnected than you're trying to make it seem.

The group was called "Class of DDS gentlemen". I have not seen the page, but if it doesn't directly mention Dalhousie in the description, at least one of the members will have Dalhousie listed as their school on their facebook page, which contains their name.

The link to the institution, and the profession, is clear. That was stupidity on their part, which allowed the situation to blow up.

So if they did not use the class name in the Facebook group, you would have no problem with this?

Of course I would still have a problem with jokes about drugging and committing acts of sexual violence. However, people, myself included, do enjoy inappropriate jokes. Audience, situation, etc etc are all things that need to controlled to properly speak/write of these things.

In the case of unacceptable in public jokes, as society deems things off-limits, or just not very well received, the audience grows smaller. Eventually there is no audience, and the person is left to examine whether their joke is actually funny or not.

Again, this is part of growing up. Jokes, appropriate or not, are not funny from birth to death. We learn that some things aren't funny anymore, and somethings stop being just to us. Those jokes, by and large, stop the making the cut.

For young men growing up playing online games, or basking in internet anonymity, sexual violence and homophobic comments have long been a go to. I cannot count the amount of times I've been told I will be raped, or that I'm a 'fag'.

As 'real-life' responsibilities start to creep into 'digital-life', people might need to start examining what they find funny, or be ready to be accountable, to whatever degree, for their actions. Is there an area to debate? For sure.

Social evolution. Its becoming less and less ok, the audiences are getting smaller and smaller, and the venues are closing down for jokes about being sexually violent towards women. This is a good thing.

[–]EnigmaticTortoiseSocial Libertarian || MB 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No they absolutely do not. I have zero moral duty to 'tone police' my friends.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

It's important to remember that when talking on the internet, even in a private conversation, its a kin to whispering in an aircraft hanger filled shoulder to shoulder with people. If someone overhears you, a lot of people get and up learning about your conversation.

There are a lot of assumptions here that we can't be sure hold.

Not everyone is a power facebook user. Do you consider yourself a power redditor? Do you read every comment made on every sub you subscribe to?

You chose to associate yourself (by clicking subscribe) to every one of your subs. Do you want to be held accountable for everything that has ever been said on any of them? Even the ones you joined on a lark and never bothered with thereafter?

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (14子コメント)

There are a lot of assumptions here that we can't be sure hold.

Pro tip: When making rude, crude, classless comments, which go as far as insinuating committing violent crimes (joke or not)... you play it safe and factor in all assumptions, whether "you can be sure they hold" or not.

Is that really a difficult thing? I've said all sorts of things, that in a different place, or time, or audience, could have landed me in a ton of trouble. To date, I never gotten into any seriously sticky situation. It's not very difficult.

Think about what you're saying. Think about who you're saying it to. Think about how someone else you don't want to hear/see it could. Think about what would happen. Decide if its worth saying. Again, not difficult.

You chose to associate yourself (by clicking subscribe) to every one of your subs. Do you want to be held accountable for everything that has ever been said on any of them? Even the ones you joined on a lark and never bothered with thereafter?

You are blowing this so far out of reality, its difficult to take it seriously.

All those in the group have been suspended, from one aspect of the program, until the review is complete. This is basically the same as when you're a child and a group of students is talking in the back, disrupting class, and the teacher sends whole group out in the hall.

So long as the review properly sorts out the talkers, from the people in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't see a problem. If people are punished unfairly, than that is, unfair.

If you don't want to be treated like a child in elementary school, don't join groups and associate yourself with people are.

Do you want to be held accountable for everything that has ever been said on any of them?

Sure. Hold me to an appropriate level of accountability.

"JJBus34, we see here that you were on X sub. There was a thread in said sub speaking of things of illegal nature. What do you know about it?"

Me: "Jack shit. Didn't read the article, didn't read the thread."

"Carry on."

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Pro tip: When making rude, crude, classless comments, which go as far as insinuating committing violent crimes (joke or not)... you play it safe and factor in all assumptions, whether "you can be sure they hold" or not.

Do you have some evidence that all 13 members were active participants? Can you share with us? I want to be sure all 13 were actively participating before I blanket condemn them.

To date, I never gotten into any seriously sticky situation. It's not very difficult.

So if the wrong person had access to every post found on every sub you subscribe to, and you accept owning everything posted on your subs, you have nothing to fear? I've seen people on this sub say shameful things (expl: EI users are parasites that should be allowed to starve). You are an active member of this group. Do you want to own, to your reputation, statements like that?

So long as the review properly sorts out the talkers, from the people in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't see a problem. If people are punished unfairly, than that is, unfair.

Their names have all been posted (by Dalhousie professors no less). Not a single member, even those found to have hardly cared for facebook or the group, will ever escape the shame of this guilt by association.

Sure. Hold me to an appropriate level of accountability. "JJBus34, we see here that you were on X sub. There was a thread in said sub speaking of things of illegal nature. What do you know about it?" Me: "Jack shit. Didn't read the article, didn't read the thread." "Carry on."

You forgot the step where you are publicly shamed for participating in something you had no knowledge of. That part is a bit important.

[–]givalina 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you have some evidence that all 13 members were active participants? Can you share with us? I want to be sure all 13 were actively participating before I blanket condemn them.

http://i.cbc.ca/1.2874000.1418677566!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_300/dalhousie-university-misogynist-group.jpg

See the "seen by everyone" tag, within two hours of the poll being posted? I'd suggest that is fairly good evidence.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So you are not responsible for just your own actions, but for any action you happen to observe?

[–]givalina 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I intended to merely provide evidence, which you asked for, that shows all the subscribers were active participants.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You consider viewing a piece of content and taking no action active participation?

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you have some evidence that all 13 members were active participants? Can you share with us? I want to be sure all 13 were actively participating before I blanket condemn them.

That's what the review quote dealt with. They will look at the individuals. You're jumping to conclusions, not me. Again, everyone is getting 'brought down to the station' for questioning. No one has been charged with the crime yet. To put in that speak.

So if the wrong person had access to every post found on every sub you subscribe to, and you accept owning everything posted on your subs, you have nothing to fear? I've seen people on this sub say shameful things (expl: EI users are parasites that should be allowed to starve). You are an active member of this group. Do you want to own, to your reputation, statements like that?

Again, quite a stretch, put I'll play.

I have nothing to fear from anything I've said. Maybe something has been poorly written, or possibly too emotional, and under some crazy situation I could possibly have to say "sorry, I was being a little over the top there"... but that would be the extent of that.

To the what others have said, I have no fear of that. Everything here is in writing. With your EI example, you could likely find me commenting, actively refuting and not allowing a comment like to stand.

If you don't want to get labelled a jerk, don't act like a jerk. In situations where people could be getting a first impression of you, its important to not be clearly associated with someone/thing you don't wish to a part of the impression. If you're secure enough in your situation, you should call out people who are acting like a jerk.

Their names have all been posted (by Dalhousie professors no less). Not a single member, even those found to have hardly cared for facebook or the group, will ever escape the shame of this guilt by association.

This is what happens when things are in writing. I'm confused as to the surprise. There are 'risks' when you write something down. Audience, setting, timing etc are all things you lose degrees of control with once its in writing. Again, one must take some responsibility for who they are associating with, and what they're writing. Those who did not do those things, should not be punished.

As to the "never escaping". I've been following the story, I think I saw their names once. I do not know any of them. This issue has quickly, and thankfully gone beyond the individual and into a larger societal discussion. That Little Timmy got kicked out of dental school won't even be a footnote. Unless you're Little Timmy, and maybe you shouldn't attach committing violent crimes to your name. Again, writing vs speaking. Control over the situation vs little control.

You forgot the step where you are publicly shamed for participating in something you had no knowledge of. That part is a bit important.

Nature of the medium. Think before you type. Get an understanding of what you're associating with. If you think "hey if the wrong people found out about this I could get in trouble", it's probably not a great idea. But its your choice. I lurked this sub for months before posting, to get an idea of if I wanted to be a part of it or not. I figured out what I was getting into, and was ok with it.

[–]drhuge12Subsidiarity and Social Democracy 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also, a subreddit with thousands of anonymous subscribers is very different from a private facebook group for a small program whose members all know each other.

[–]SirHumpyMonarchist - reform liberal/social democrat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, a subreddit with thousands of anonymous subscribers is very different from a private facebook group for a small program whose members all know each other.

Reddit is not even anonymous. Reddit is properly called pseudonymous, because anyone here can be found out with a little skill. This has happened to me before, and while it is scary, it is to be expected.

My first defence against getting doxed on Reddit is to only ever post things that I stand behind 100%. I would never write anything on here that could be found morally questionable, even as a joke.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

To the what others have said, I have no fear of that. Everything here is in writing. With your EI example, you could likely find me commenting, actively refuting and not allowing a comment like to stand.

This is a stretch. What if the comment passed by while you were on vacation, or on a day you didn't much bother with reddit? The insensitive or violent comment passes by without you having a chance to challenge it.

By your standard you now own it to your reputation.

That Little Timmy got kicked out of dental school won't even be a footnote. Unless you're Little Timmy, and maybe you shouldn't attach committing violent crimes to your name. Again, writing vs speaking. Control over the situation vs little control.

And again, it all comes back to control. I have no control over what others post here on this sub. I cannot be expected to own the content of the subs I subscribe to. No one should face that level of scrutiny. If that is the new standard, why would anyone use reddit or facebook? The danger would just to be great.

If you think "hey if the wrong people found out about this I could get in trouble", it's probably not a great idea. But its your choice. I lurked this sub for months before posting, to get an idea of if I wanted to be a part of it or not. I figured out what I was getting into, and was ok with it.

So you claim to have never joined a sub on a lark? Really? And you expect the rest of humanity to be held to that standard? That we own the content of the subs we join. Not our own speech, our own writing, but the speech and writing of hundreds or thousands of others outside our control.

What a bleak world that would be. Full of danger and constant fear.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is a stretch.

Your entire position relies on this. You're manipulating situations well beyond reality to fit your perfect example of how this could go horribly wrong.

What if the comment passed by while you were on vacation, or on a day you didn't much bother with reddit?

Then I say that? If we take this to the extreme (which is all you've done), I've got an iron-clad alibi. On vacation, not using internet, not using reddit. Had nothing to do with the comments, didn't know they existed. The appropriate level of accountability for me is 0.

Further, especially on reddit, you could go back through someone's post history. Presumably this would be done in the event of someone trying to destroy someone else like your doomsday scenario. The body of my 'writings' would provide a pretty in-depth analysis of what I do support, what I don't support, and give pretty clear parameters of what I could support.

It makes guilt by association much more difficult if the act is something that I've, in writing, spoke against in the past.

And again, it all comes back to control. I have no control over what others post here on this sub.

You have control on what subs you're in, and what you post to them. It's not a difficult to ask yourself: "What does being in the sub say about me?" There is a reason you clicked subscribe. There is a reason you laughed at that joke, or told that other one.

What does it say about you, that you've gotten in a situation where something said, by you or someone in your community, requires an investigation? Requires 'accountability'?

Control what you can control.

So you claim to have never joined a sub on a lark?

I guess so. Again, what does it say about you, that you joined X 'as a joke'. Remember the context of what we're dealing with. Cracking jokes about drugging people and committing violent sexual acts. Why is that funny in the first place? Maybe some people need to examine what they find funny.

"It was just a joke", does not hold up. Its cop-out.

Not our own speech, our own writing, but the speech and writing of hundreds or thousands of others outside our control.

Again, you've gone well beyond reality to fit your doomsday scenario. I said an appropriate level of accountability.

If a comment is made, and you clearly express your distaste, no accountability. If you make no comment, you might be brought in for questioning in this doomsday situation for questioning, to identify where exactly you stand. If you contribute, or feed others (such as posting "HA!" after the joke) that increases your level of accountability.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

On vacation, not using internet, not using reddit. Had nothing to do with the comments, didn't know they existed. The appropriate level of accountability for me is 0.

When you do browse reddit, do you visit every sub you subscribe to? Do you make sure to visit them all, everyday?

Can you not see that the burden you are placing on social media users is crippling? Constant vigilance, constant fear, not for anything the user writes or shares, but to police the actions of their tangential associates. Why do you want to live in that world?

What does it say about you, that you've gotten in a situation where something said, by you or someone in your community, requires an investigation? Requires 'accountability'?

Again, this is your standard? If you are a part of any group that harbors free spirits or libertarians, or even trolls (think the 4chan sub), you need to reconsider your life and be prepared for the consequences of owning some other's actions? Really?

If you make no comment, you might be brought in for questioning in this doomsday situation for questioning, to identify where exactly you stand.

So anyone that doesn't notice a salty post as it goes by owns some level of accountability? That is a corrosive standard for free civil society.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you do browse reddit, do you visit every sub you subscribe to? Do you make sure to visit them all, everyday?

Most, possibly all. I'm not subscribed to a million. But that doesn't matter. Again, you're stretching so far to even have a shot at making this work.

Once again, there is an appropriate level of accountability for your online activities. Once again, you must be mindful of what you participate in, associate with, and contribute to. It directly reflects on who you are. Again, simple question to ask yourself before joining something: "If someone develops a first impression of me, based on me being a part of X, what impact, positive or negative, could this have on me?"... This is every day real life. These are normal decisions people make.

Some of these decision points are now migrating into 'digital' lives. That's an entirely different debate, and about internet anonymity, primarily.

Again, this is your standard?

Is it really a high standard? Why is that standard wrong?

If you are a part of any group that harbors free spirits or libertarians

Where is the problem with that? I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate. I guess if I hang out with a bunch of libertarians, I could get labelled as such. I could explain otherwise...?

you need to reconsider your life and be prepared for the consequences of owning some other's actions? Really?

You continue to use own. Which is something I've never said. You're the only one saying that. You continue to jump say far from reality, its difficult to continue.

I also never said reconsider your life. If you're hanging out with a group of assholes, you might just be an asshole. You might even be ok with that. You are free to do so. However, you should probably be mindful that you being an asshole could have a negative impact on you at some point.

If you're hanging out with assholes, but aren't one, I think you should examine that. What are you gaining from that? Is it worth the risk of getting labelled an asshole?

Children make these decisions. They decide who to be friends with, how to act in certain situations. Are you suggesting that we should hold our online behaviour standards lower than 6 year olds?

So anyone that doesn't notice a salty post as it goes by owns some level of accountability?

Again, appropriate level of accountability. The 'group' was brought down. The 'group' is being questioned. Just like every person in the mafia doesn't get arrested for 1 crime, every member facebook group will not be expelled. There has to be evidence you committed the act. Some people are getting questioned.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

2nd comment:

Furthermore, the idiots in charge of this group forced the situation to go well beyond a private discussion, with closed doors reactions, which would have avoided many of your doomsday fears. I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring this, or just didn't know, but the name of the group was:

“Class of DDS Gentlemen”

Presumably, if not in the direct description of group, but at least some of the members, would have had their affiliation with Dalhousie on their facebook pages.

Going back to the creation of 1st impressions, the University itself is now implicated. It reflects on their student body, and their institution. It could impact the prestige of their program, it could impact enrollment, it could do a number of things.

This forces Dalhousie at react from a PR standpoint as well.

Private or not, by putting it in their name, in writing, and affiliating the university they lost control of message. In other comment, you say it was an outsider who someone in the group showed the information to. Well, that turned out to be the equivalent of telling a racist joke to a member of that race. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong audience.

Again, using the internet as a shoulder to shoulder airplane hanger. The note was passed around, and a lot of people saw it.

[–]gwla 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (19子コメント)

This was a 13 member private Facebook group, in which people posted very serious things. It would be unjust if members were not held accountable for their membership, which they should indeed have policed. Use some common sense.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (18子コメント)

It would be unjust if members were not held accountable for their membership, which they should indeed have policed.

So you are willing to be held to that standard?

If you join a low membership reddit sub, you are responsible for everything posted on the sub? You own it to your reputation?

What is the cutoff? If the sub exceeds 100 members, do you get a pass? What about 1,000?

[–]gwla 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (17子コメント)

If you join a low membership reddit sub, you are responsible for everything posted on the sub? You own it to your reputation?

We are talking about a 13 member private facebook group, a self-proclaimed "gentleman's club," not a reddit sub, so your comment is irrelevant.

What is the cutoff?

As I said, use some common sense.

The point you are trying to make is that association in a group with people doing morally blameworthy things is not always morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean it never is, which is what you are suggesting. This group is small, intimate, private and seems to be defined by the misconduct of its members. They call themselves a gentleman's club, and seem to have repurposed the term "gentleman" in the posts to tag casual misogyny. You can raise all the hypotheticals you want about different social media platforms, but the fact is that in this case mere membership in this group is blameworthy and should be punished.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (16子コメント)

We are talking about a 13 member private facebook group, a self-proclaimed "gentleman's club," not a reddit sub, so your comment is irrelevant.

Can you explain the difference? You join a facebook group via a single click, and you join a reddit sub via a single click. Both require the same effort. Both accumulate members of shared interest/locality etc. Why are you free from fear with a low membership reddit sub but not a low membership facebook group?

This group is small, intimate, private and seems to be defined by the misconduct of its members.

Do you mean that all low membership facebook groups are filled with active participants? Whereas a large facebook group will have a core of dedicated members and a mass of moderately interested members, a low membership facebook group must be filled 100% with active members? That seems reasonable to you?

Surely you know a few low interest facebook users, right? People that sign in once a week and barely care what is happening with their friends/groups?

[–]gwla 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Can you explain the difference?

This is probably not a great use of my time. The salient difference probably that reddit is anonymous whereas facebook activity is linked to a detailed personal profile, thus indicating that your discretion should probably be more engaged when you're doing things on facebook rather than on reddit. There are others that you can, once again, use your common sense to discern, including the fact that group membership is publicly displayed on facebook and not on reddit -- this points to the difference between a "group" and a "reddit."

Do you mean that all low membership facebook groups are filled with active participants?

No.

Again: common sense. Its not just about the mechanics of the group. Its about the kind of content being posted to it and the people who belong to it. These are people entering a profession in which significant public trust is reposed. Being a non-participating member in a group where the use of prescription drugs to rape women is mooted is nowhere near acceptable, notwithstanding their nonparticipation.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

There are others that you can, once again, use your common sense to discern, including the fact that group membership is publicly displayed on facebook and not on reddit -- this points to the difference between a "group" and a "reddit."

Here is where knowing the details would help you. These 13 were "outed" when a member showed off the group to an outsider. No facebook user could have perused any member's facebook profile and discovered their membership in the private group. In this way it is akin to a reddit user's subscribed subs.

Again: common sense. Its not just about the mechanics of the group. Its about the kind of content being posted to it and the people who belong to it.

Again, do you claim to review the full contents of a reddit sub before subscribing? I certainly don't. Is it fair to suggest that facebook users must henceforth fully review the groups they join, for fear of their association ruining their professional career down the road?

[–]gwla 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (9子コメント)

In this way it is akin to a reddit user's subscribed subs.

Except that once you find the group you see all the members.

Is it fair to suggest that facebook users must henceforth fully review the groups they join, for fear of their association ruining their professional career down the road?

Y'know, I think it IS fair to suggest that people living in the world exercise judgement in deciding what kind of ventures and groups they want to attach their name to -- especially if that group is one defined by discussion of serious misconduct and they are entering a position of public trust.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Except that once you find the group you see all the members.

How does that relate to what these 13 face? Knowing that the group was made up of their fellows (if they even bothered to fully review the group, its members, and back content) has no impact on the low-participation users being held accountable for some other's actions.

Y'know, I think it IS fair to suggest that people living in the world exercise judgement in deciding what kind of ventures and groups they want to attach their name to

So we should save this for future use, right? If some rando (jilted lover, business competitor - who knows really) in the future can attach a name to gwla's account, than gwla is willing to be held responsible for the content of all the subs he subscribes to.

Think on if you want to carry that burden.

[–]gwla 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (7子コメント)

So we should save this for future use, right? If some rando (jilted lover, business competitor - who knows really) in the future can attach a name to gwla's account, than gwla is willing to be held responsible for the content of all the subs he subscribes to.

I don't know why you'd say that, because we are talking about something very different -- you can't seem to grasp that different uses of different social media platforms can result in different consequences, exactly because of the differences in those uses and platforms. I am certainly ready to be held to the facebook groups I'm a member of, mostly because I am a responsible adult.

[–]jjbus34Social Democrat 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can you explain the difference? You join a facebook group via a single click, and you join a reddit sub via a single click.

Entering a reddit sub is like walking into a room you've never been in before. The only thing you're basing your decision on to enter or not is name on top of the door. That leaves a ton of real life ambiguity. Maybe you misunderstood the name, or its meaning. Maybe you don't think it would be "quite" like that. You have a reasonable period to determine whether you'd like to be associated with that sub, and therefore that community. After a while, whether you're an heavy participator or not, you're a part of the community.

A private facebook group is something you're invited to. You have much more information on the nature of the group, by virtue of knowing at least some of the community in advance... or else why would you be invited. Again, there is still a period of determining whether or not you want to be associated with that community, and to what extent, but that 'grace period' is shorter because you had more knowledge prior to walking in the first time.

[–]drhuge12Subsidiarity and Social Democracy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only thing you're basing your decision on to enter or not is name on top of the door. That leaves a ton of real life ambiguity.

/r/AnimalPorn, for instance, has probably created its fair share of misunderstandings.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Entering a reddit sub is like walking into a room you've never been in before. The only thing you're basing your decision on to enter or not is name on top of the door. That leaves a ton of real life ambiguity.

I clearly said subscribing to a sub, not simply visiting a sub. Once you click "subscribe" you are as much a member of a community as anyone that joins a facebook group.

[–]SirHumpyMonarchist - reform liberal/social democrat 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I sometimes meet people who use Reddit in real life. Every single time I have found that person to be a fine, upstanding person. Every single time I have spoken to that person about the problems with the Reddit community as I perceive them. Namely, that people on Reddit can be sexist, racist, ignorant, assholes, and many other things. Every single time the people I spoke to agree with my general assessment, and we sometimes can even name specific subreddits that we find the most odious, like the Red Pill or WhiteRights.

I have never judged anyone who is an active participant on Reddit simply because they are an active participant on Reddit. Reddit is far too large and far too diverse to even be able to judge a single person based on their relationship to it. That would be kind of like saying "all Torontonians are stupid assholes" or "all Newfdoundlanders are inbred hicks." I would never judge people from Toronto or Newfoundland as an aggregate group.

That being said, I can and will judge smaller communities based on what those communities represent. If someone posts seriously in The Red Pill subreddit I will assume that person is a sexist pig. If someone posts seriously in the WhiteRights subreddit I will assume that person is a racist jerk.

A Facebook group with 13 members is much more like individual subreddits than Reddit as a whole. First of all, those 13 people chose to be in that Facebook group. Any on e of therm could have denounced what was discussed there or left that group at any time. Second, 13 people is such a small group that it can be reasonably assumed that the sentiments expressed by one member are the sentiments agreed to by all members. Third, judging by the screenshots of that group that I have seen, there is absolutely no ambiguity about what that group was about or what they talked about. From the images posted there to the discussions written there, it would be obvious to anyone who belonged to that group what the general attitude and spirit of that group was.

[–]thudly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The dental profession's need to not be seen as a bunch of rapists trumps these students' freedom of speech.

[–]ScotiaTide[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Do you make recourse to your freedom of speech when you are not the one that spoke? What of low interest, low participation members?

[–]thudly 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I know that if I'd added myself to a facebook group that then started spreading hate, or anything offensive, I'd immediately remove myself from that group and report them. If I didn't, I shouldn't be surprised to be part of any collateral damage that ensues when the hammer comes down.

[–]EnigmaticTortoiseSocial Libertarian || MB 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You'd snitch on your friends for a few off colour jokes? That's awful.

[–]scottb84Social Democrat 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You do understand that the rules of professional conduct for most professions require that you 'snitch on your friends' (what are we, 12?) should you become aware that they've breached their professional obligations?

[–]Garfong 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To add to what you're saying: I remember when I studied Engineering we had some talks put on by APEGBC in the last year of our program trying to instill the importance of professionalism, and maintaining the dignity of the profession (or some such). I imagine it's similar in many other professions.

Actually, one of the items in Nova Scotia dental association Code of Ethics covers this:

29) Avoid damaging the reputation of colleagues for personal motives; do, however, report to the appropriate authority any unprofessional conduct by colleagues.

The cynical reason for this is that professional associations are not only regulatory agencies, but also PR firms for the profession, so they want to ensure that the profession is seen in a good light by the general public. So ideally they would like to learn about unprofessional conduct and correct it before it hits the news.

[–]daolothPirate, for great justice 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was waiting for either you or one of the other self-identified lawyers to come in here and speak some sense. It's like half of this sub has never heard of professional associations and the codes of conduct they SUPER RIGIDLY FORCE THEIR MEMBERS TO ADHERE TO.

I'm reading comments consisting of "yeah, well, lawyers do it too". Uh, no they don't. Or they get fucking disbarred.

[–]thudly 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You wouldn't snitch on a bunch of guys joking about raping women? That's awful.

[–]EnigmaticTortoiseSocial Libertarian || MB 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Absolutely not, unless I thought they were going to actually do it.

[–]SirHumpyMonarchist - reform liberal/social democrat 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is incredibly morally suspect of you.

[–]LaffingBoy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Indeed. Heard this story on CBC radio a few minutes ago. Students are calling for blood and 1 of the 13 involved has threatened/spoke of self-harm.

Amazing that a public shaming is insufficient. It seems many won't be satisfied with less than the total destruction of these men's lives.

[–]Gonterf 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This shaming hasn't been very public at all - their names have yet to be released.

[–]LaffingBoy -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd think they'd be well known on campus by now, not that it ever needed to be that widespread.

I meant the kind of shaming that happens when you say or do something stupid in front of others, not national or international humiliation.

Edit: it will be interesting to see what happens if and when their names are released.