Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All 144
An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times Magazine has an insightful article putting into words how I've felt about information-age culture for a while now. It's about a phenomenon dubbed the "loser edit." The term itself was born out of reality TV — once an outcome had been decided while the show was still taping, the producers would comb back through the footage and selectively paste together everything that seemed to foreshadow the loser's fall. When the show actually aired, it thus had an easy-to-follow narrative.
But as the information age has overtaken us, the "loser edit" is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.
The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.
But as the information age has overtaken us, the "loser edit" is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.
The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.
Classic Case (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a classic case of confirmation bias. The human brain does it all the time; if you don't know what it is or how to avoid it, look it up.
Yeah, I'm probably preaching to the choir on that last bit. I hope I am, anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Classic Case (Score:4, Interesting)
It's why the EU right to have old, irrelevant search results is so important. Society has to forgive and forget, otherwise lives are ruined by one or two mistakes. It's great that machines remember everything for us, but also terrible.
Re:Classic Case (Score:5, Insightful)
It's why the EU right to have old, irrelevant search results is so important. Society has to forgive and forget, otherwise lives are ruined by one or two mistakes. It's great that machines remember everything for us, but also terrible.
I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect. Instead of trying to appear what we're not, we should be more interested in being who we are, warts and all, and encouraging others to do the same.
It wasn't that long ago that a woman who was raped was considered "ruined for life." By speaking out about it instead of trying to hide it, that is no longer the case. Same with gays and lesbians that used to have to hide in the closet. We can't go on wasting lives with some false idea that if you can get people to forget about it, you don't have to deal with it.
We simply can't advance, either as individuals or a society, if we actively "forget" anything that society labels a "mistake." Imagine a world where everyone can't throw rocks because everyone else knows the rock-throwers are also not so perfect.
nope (Score:2)
"I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect"
There is absolutely no evidence that this is hapenning. in fact there is a lot of evidence that people simply stops at the top information they find and retain negative information far easier (bias). Look there is a reason stuff like susperstition exists, post hoc or ad hominem are used successfully : because people bias toward the negative. Sprea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic is faulty. In the case of rape victims and homosexuals that person has done nothing wrong. They were victims of prejudice. On the other hand, people who have gone bankrupt and caused other to lose money, people who have trolled death threats on Twitter, people who have committed crimes have done something wrong in the eyes of society. Blaming them is justified.
Even today, at a time when women and homosexuals are mostly accepted by society, there is still prejudice. While I'm sure everyone wants i
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, people who have gone bankrupt and caused other to lose money, people who have trolled death threats on Twitter, people who have committed crimes have done something wrong in the eyes of society.
Would they be doing this if they couldn't remain anonymous? Doubt it very much.
there is still prejudice. While I'm sure everyone wants it to go away, not everyone wants to be the one pushing the issue and would simply prefer to hide it so that they can live. Cowardly perhaps, but when you have a mortgage and a family or your health is poor sometimes having a job is more important than making a point
It's a shame that most people want the benefits of the fight waged by their predecessors, but are unwilling to pay it forward. It some point you have to say "enough", or the h8ters p0wn you, body, mind, and soul.
Living in fear every day of losing your job because someone outs you is not a life, and it's extremely harmful to your health, both physically and mentally. The sight of the grandmothers in Kiev defending Freedom Squa
Re:Classic Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Would they be doing this if they couldn't remain anonymous? Doubt it very much.
Exactly what steps did Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Dean Buntrock, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Mark Swartz, Richard Scrushy, David Glenn, Leland Brendsel, Vaughn Clarke, Robert Dean, Nazir Dossani, Hank Greenberg, Bernie Madoff, David Friehling, Frank DePascalli, and Ramalinga Raju take to remain anonymous? They were named officers of corporations that committed financial fraud [accounting-degree.org] and cost many people billions of dollars, and there was no way any of them thought they'd have anonymity as a shield.
It's a shame that most people want the benefits of the fight waged by their predecessors, but are unwilling to pay it forward.
It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have something they want to hide for social reasons.
Living in fear every day of losing your job because someone outs you is not a life,
It isn't your responsibility to make that decision for them, nor should you be using this as an excuse to defend those who do "loser edits" of people who want to keep their private lives somewhat private. Your example of people who speak out about their rape experiences living happier lives than those who don't missed one critical factor: they are speaking out VOLUNTARILY, not as the result of some arrogant know-it-all who decided they'd be happier if their lives were made public.
Re:Classic Case (Score:5, Interesting)
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And in the current context, we're talking about people who express hatred behind a shield of anonymity. Do you really believe they would do the same if they weren't anonymous? Funny how, once they're exposed, they're not so defiant. Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have something they want to hide for social reasons.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better. Every person who is out makes it easier for everyone to be a little less fearful. We've seen this repeatedly with rape victims, with the LGB, and now we're seeing it with the T and the t.
So let me rephrase what you said, with one change: "It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have been there because they want to be seen as politically correct."
Re: (Score:2)
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And YOU missed the point that those who are speaking ot are doing so voluntarily, not as the result of a "loser edit" of their lives, and those who do find themselves in the limelight because of such edits are rarely happier or living better lives.
Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
The statement you replied to referred to people who had committed fraud and cost others lots of money, and YOU chose to claim that had they thought they'd been able to maintain anonymity you doubted they would have done that. They didn't have anonymity to start
Re: (Score:2)
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And YOU missed the point that those who are speaking ot are doing so voluntarily, not as the result of a "loser edit" of their lives, and those who do find themselves in the limelight because of such edits are rarely happier or living better lives.
It's because rape victims have spoken out publicly that "loser edits" mentioning such things would be almost universally condemned. You obviously don't get it, just like you don't get that its the stigma that keeps victims silent, and that stigma is removed as more people come forward.
Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
The statement you replied to referred to people who had committed fraud and cost others lots of money, and YOU chose to claim that had they thought they'd been able to maintain anonymity you doubted they would have done that.
No, you're the one who attempted to change the entire context. Moving the goalposts is a common technique of people who have a poor argument.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better.
What arrogance. Better for you, perhaps, but not always better for those who are outed against their will. It's not your right to decide for anyone but yourself, and that makes defending the outing through "loser edits" using that argument pure arrogance.
What a load of crock. I have never defended outing through "loser edits." The arrogan
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but I think it's going to take 60 to 80 years for viewpoints to shift from "nobody knows what I did so I have the moral high ground" to "yeah, yeah, your skeletons are out there too so get off your high horse" - basically, when the kids who are used to it all being out there have grown up and taken over.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally - someone who gets it!!! Problem is, it's not going to happen if we don't push for it, and set examples ourselves. The whole concept of "loser edits" is based on embarrassing people who have secrets they want to keep hidden. If you're open about everything, including just how screwed up your life is, nobody can embarrass you with a "loser edit." And just as importantly, anything that's not true will be easier to see for what it is.
And yet, most of the comments are accusing me of encouraging loser
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Classic Case (Score:4, Insightful)
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Thomas Paine would say you have a very bad idea there.
There are times when anonymity serves a greater purpose. If I lived in a predominately Islamic-ruled country and wanted to criticize the ruling class about their policies towards women, or introduce the idea that maybe Islam is not a good basis for a legal system, I damned sure would want to remain anonymous while doing so, lest I wind up getting imprisoned or whipped to within an inch of my life over the charge of "blasphemy" (yes, that's a thing in some places, and yes, it goes on even today.)
A better US-based reason? Leaks to the press. Leaks are what point us to uncovering crimes and misdemeanors by public officials. A historical example? Watergate's "Deep Throat". A recent example? Mrs. Clinton's little habit of accepting massive amounts of payola from foreign sources to her "charity" while she was Secretary of State. If it weren't for a leak to the press, no one outside of a few elites would know about it.
So no, m'dear - removing anonymity is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." and "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not
Re: (Score:2)
May have mixed up the man, but replace it with "The Author of Poor Richard's Almanack", and the point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One problem with anonymous tips is verifying their information. A lot of people see anonymity as a license to make stuff up that they think sounds good or make unfounded accusations against people they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Re: (Score:2)
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Bull. When towns were smaller, everyone knew everyone else's business. And of course, if you spoke in the public square, you were identifiable just by your face.
As for people in power punishing those they dislike, the Catholic church has a long history of that, so your claim that people were "anonymous" in those days is demonstrably false. Besides, what ever happened to having the courage of your convictions? Die on your feet or be a serf on your knees? Live free or die? Give me liberty or give me death? I
Re:Classic Case == Crappy Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:
Obviously those ideas were the fiction of a madman, irrelevant to anyone and unworthy of publication. And yet:
Perhaps others are more aware that staying alive to write another day is more valuable in the long run than becoming an immediate, little known and unheard martyr for a cause? Like those who would stand up against an, e.g., Islamic government and say "you really ought not treat women that way." Perhaps you think that "Deep Throat" had nothing of value to say, either.
I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
Yeah, thank God that /. vets the identities of people who post under other than "Anonymous Coward" names, so we know that you are the one, true Barbara Hudson (I'm sorry, BarbaraHudson) on the planet and that is your true, real meatspace name.
My phone number's also out there. There's nothing for adults to be afraid of.
There's nothing YOU fear, maybe, but it's arrogance to project that lack of concern over your own safety onto others and tell them how they should behave. Or to defend things like "loser edits" because you have no fear and forcing other people into the open will only prove you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they profess to believe are hypocrites. It shows that, deep down, they really don't believe what they claim to. So yes, it's an attack on them - but their actions make it entirely justifiable, because they're hypocrites, duh.
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:he published Common Sense [wikipedia.org] anonymously because of its treasonable content.
Paine was the same guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.", "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real m
Re: (Score:2)
It's a classic case of confirmation bias. The human brain does it all the time; if you don't know what it is or how to avoid it, look it up.
Yeah, I'm probably preaching to the choir on that last bit. I hope I am, anyway.
No, it's classic anymore, because it involves social media:
loser edit nc
(...)
2. Confirmation bias involving social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a classic case of confirmation bias. The human brain does it all the time; if you don't know what it is or how to avoid it, look it up.
Indeed. Once I learned about confirmation bias, I started to see examples of it everywhere. ;^)
Soy un perdedor (Score:1)
I'm a loser baby, why don't you kill me?
Re: (Score:1)
Hindsight or Rewrite? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it all makes sense!" is a comfortable place in a chaotic World.
Steve Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
Steve Jobs and his "connect the dots" commencement address [youtube.com].
And that's the thing, the media does that all the time with successful people to show "what it takes" and never show the people who did those things and failed.
And business books will only show the successes that fit into their narrative and next thing you you know, your CEO reads that book and has all of you aping the successful company.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." - Nineteen Eighty Four, George Orwell.
Proper term is selection bias (Score:3)
The most dangerous place I see this happening is in politics. No, I don't mean what politicians do. I mean when you and I think of our own politics. W
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hindsight or Rewrite? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't understand this world then I would posit that that is simply because you do not know enough about it.
Understanding the World is not the goal for everyone, indeed, perhaps fewer people than one might imagine want it all neatly explained by science and informed study.
If people have proven nothing else, it seems clear many are much more comfortable in an illogical cocoon of faith and superstition.
Re:Hindsight or Rewrite? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think you understand this world then I would posit that that is also because you do not know enough about it.
The person who thinks they know it all quite often knows all too little. We are not yet at a point where we (collectively) know it all.
Dunning Kruger effect (Score:2)
The person who thinks they know it all quite often knows all too little. We are not yet at a point where we (collectively) know it all.
Pssst! Looks quite like the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org].
There's an old Irish saying (Score:1)
"Don't per the truth get in the way of a good story." Appealling narrative is more satisfying than a true one.
Also known as.... (Score:2)
Re:Also known as.... (Score:4, Informative)
What? No. That's a completely different concept. At it's core Karma is simply the name for cause and effect as a single indivisible concept, though it does embrace much more subtle chains of causality than Western thought traditionally recognizes, and many traditions have wrapped it in lots of other concepts relating to reincarnation, etc. Drop a ball and it hits the ground - karma at its simplest: one event, not two. Make a habit of spouting your mouth off in biker bars and get your ass kicked. Earn a reputation as an honest and helpful person, and you'll find help forthcoming when you need it.
What perspective has you equating that with a relatively new phenomena where people go out and build a chain of foreshadowing for whatever random shit befalls you? Hmm, okay, now that I type it, it kind of makes sense. But I stand by my assertion that they're completely unrelated.
Reality TV (Score:4, Insightful)
News doesn't fare too much better.
Opposite of loser edit (Score:4, Interesting)
There is also an opposite of the loser edit, but I don't know if it has its own name. It is the edit where by using selective editing the focus is placed on (the mistakes or the perfection) one person in a competition, and minimizes the focus on the person who will eventually win or lose. So that when the final decision is revealed it "surprises" the audience - and hence boosts drama, and hopefully higher ratings.
My feeling is that I see this behavior more than I see a "loser edit"
Re:Opposite of loser edit (Score:5, Funny)
It's called an autobiography.
Re: (Score:2)
This, and it's not just about surprise too. In some cases it can be about empathy. I've seen one such reality TV show edited such that it looked like one group had an endless stream of bad luck and mishaps. They rarely won the weekly contests, they rarely succeeded in finishing any of the challenges, and yet at the end they took home the second largest prize.
In the mean time the actual loser was shown to be a bitch the entire way through the show. Maybe she was, but maybe she wasn't and the entire show was
Re:Opposite of loser edit (Score:4, Insightful)
The highlights from games won and lost are played and edited to support the narrative.
I actually get a kick of out watching them rationalize how they knew the team in question was going to "overcome adversity" and "impose their will", etc;
Perhaps they Deserve It (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Between the CIA, which spied on Mandela and tipped the South African secret police off to where to grab him, and the Apartheid regime itself, every scrap of dirt about Mandela was vigorously publicized by the supporters of the regime for 30 years. I'm sure it would have pleased them that their efforts did not go unheard, that violent oppression still has its fans.
duh? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this has always been the case. The first time I was conscious of it was during the unabomber case when all of the news outlets were going through Ted Kaczynski's past to find the narrative they wanted. It's just a lot easier now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was an old friend of Mohammed Emwazi ("Jyhadi John") saying that he was a really nice guy - sweet, gentle, intelligent, and everyone was horrified that anyone could say that of such a monster. Er, I'm sorry, but if that's what the guy actually thought about Emwazi at the time, then that's what he thought. You can't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe Jyhadi John was a really good guy most of the time. People aren't consistent.
This isn't some new phenomenon (Score:1)
Why elevate a Celebrity in the first place? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm having a hard time seeing their point, when all I can think of is counterpoint. Prior to the Information Age, we lived in a world where our media was spoon fed to us, editing everything to make us believe a narrative. Kennedy was King of Camelot, not a womanizer. Hollywood was sparkles and success, not addictions and failures.
This tool the Internet lets us bypass all the BS and see these people for who they are, just people with problems and opinions, no one worth elevating to a point of authority. Lohan isn't a Mouseketeer anymore, she's an addict. Clinton isn't President anymore, he's tripping off to overseas underage sex parties. In the past, we'd never know the facts, just someone else's "Truth". The IRS had all of the missing backup tapes of Lerner's emails all along, perjuring themselves for the last two years. It isn't revisionism when the truth was hidden in the first place.
The cops and prosecutors love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they can find a handful of things in a sea of evidence and then construct a narrative of guilt around it.
Re:The cops and prosecutors love it (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly why the various three letter agencies are hovering up all the digital data.
And if the case is somewhat sketchy, with a lot of circumstantial evidence, if they can pile on the flimsy evidence to overwhelm the jury they will. And of course that works the other way too, if there's good evidence that might introduce doubt or exonerate the defendant, if the defense doesn't have a good discovery mechanism, it will never be known.
If you've ever served on a jury you know that the DA will always have multiple charges against the accused. Some of them might not much of anything to do with the major reason for prosecution, but as long as the jury finds the defendant guilty of something, the DA counts it as a win.
"Loser edit" is a new name for a very old evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Fatty Arbuckle? He was a bigger star than Charlie Chaplin in his day. He mentored Charlie Chaplin and discovered Buster Keaton and Bob Hope.
Then he threw a party where a hooker got sick and later died. Months later, the jury at his final trial actually gave him a formal written statement of apology from the jury, because of the grief he had gone through for no good reason.
His films were banned and his career was over: And all the publicity was edited and picked to ensure the narrative justified his destruction.
It's called "yellow journalism" these days but it's been around since speech was invented.
Re:"Loser edit" is a new name for a very old evil. (Score:5, Funny)
So a man walks into a bar, and sits down. He starts a conversation with an old guy next to him. The old guy has obviously had a few. He says to the man:
"You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No!
And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scoarching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
The old guy looks around, and makes sure that nobody is listening, and leans to the man, and he says:
"but you fuck one sheep..."
Re: (Score:2)
Very funny! As a boss of mine once said, "One 'Oh Fuck!' cancels a thousand 'Attaboys' "
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Virginia Rappe was not a hooker, she was an actress. There was at least one person who accused Arbuckle of violently raping or assaulting her at the party, resulting in the ruptured bladder that caused her death. There were numerous conflicting accounts at the time. The case dragged on through three trials; he was only acquitted in the third trial. It's still not clear what actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, who depends on Wikipedia as a reliable reference? How about something a LITTLE more serious, like the Smithsonian magazine?
To wit: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... [smithsonianmag.com]
"But Arbuckle's lawyers introduced medical evidence showing that Rappe had had a chronic bladder condition, and her autopsy concluded that there "were no marks of violence on the body, no signs that the girl had been attacked in any way." (The defense also had witnesses with damaging information about Rappe's past, but Arbuckle wouldn't let them testify, he said, out of respect for the dead.) The doctor who treated Rappe at the hotel testified that she had told him Arbuckle did not try to sexually assault her, but the prosecutor got the point dismissed as hearsay."
And:
"It wasn't until the third trial, in March of 1922, that Arbuckle allowed his attorneys to call the witnesses who had known Rappe to the stand. ...They testified that Rappe had suffered previous abdominal attacks; drank heavily and often disrobed at parties after doing so; was promiscuous, and had an illegitimate daughter."
If not a hooker, then perhaps it's too close to call. Fatty deserved better.
Re: (Score:2)
All of those testimonies against Rappe were also unproven allegations and rumors. Your own source makes that clear.
You seem to find it easy to vigorously defend a man's reputation against unfounded allegations, but you call a woman a hooker or "too close to call" based on... no such allegations. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yellow journalism has infected most of media these days particularly in Hollywood who has figured out that they have a one-side, one-directional soapbox from which to preach their beliefs. I'm not just talking about what passes for a documentary these days but even in screenwriting for fictional shows. The writer or rather whoever ends up creating the dialog that a character utters or whoever comes up with the plot has the ability to make statements knowing that there is no opportunity for debate. Quite
Re: (Score:2)
It's also known as the "frame-up" or "frame-job"
I suffered one from the Aerospace Corporation.
And to respond to your post, recall that Chaplin made a parody of Hitler in 1940. . . and then Hollywood black-listed him.
Post hoc (Score:1)
Awesome! "Technology" has invented post hoc reasoning and given it to us as its legacy.
It's called hindsight (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is always 20/20. Humans are not able to predict the future no matter what information we are fed (with the exception of Charlie Sheen). Only after the outcome is realized can we then look back and see the clues leading up to it. It is hindsight that we use as a tool to punish others for not being able to predict the future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's called prejudice. We cheery pick the facts to predicate the conclusion and then give it the fancy name of "hindsight".
Re: (Score:2)
It's also useful in learning from the mistakes of others, and stilling our anxiety that bad things can happen to us, too.
It's related to the cognitive bias called the "just world theory." It's what makes people blame victims. Sometimes more appropriately than others, and our conscious is more "shocked" the "less culpable" the victim is. And why people get more upset about bad things happening to animals than most anything else. Even children because of the assumption the parents or the state is partly at fa
You can find proof of anything (Score:5, Insightful)
You can find "proof" of anything you want to on the internet, whether it be that the Queen of England is really a lizard or that Steven Harper is a bible-thumping arsehole. You can "prove" Obama isn't really an American, that Kanye West is gawd or that Kanye West is the biggest ego to ever hit the planet.
The internet is just chock full of articles, forums, blogs, and other sources you can cite to support your pre-determined outcome.
It has always been this way -- there is no "fact checking" required to post something. On the other hand, there is no "editor" on a "mission" to change what you post, either.
At the core of it, the problem is not the internet nor the history it exposes, but the viciousness and old-fashioned nastiness of people who want to destroy others, often just because they can. Add that in to the human stew that just loves to hear and read nasty gossip about people they're jealous of, and you have a recipe for the "loser edit."
Where the internet differs from reality TV, though, is that with "reality" TV, all the episodes are subject to "loser edits" because that's what builds "characters" out of hours and hours of otherwise useless footage into something the general public will suck back like sweetened pablum.
Re:You can find proof of anything (Score:4, Funny)
You can find "proof" of anything you want to on the internet, whether it be that the Queen of England is really a lizard..
Googling "Queen of England is really a lizard"... whoa! 16.9 million hits! The top one: Reasons The Queen Is A Bloody Lizard [neonnettle.com]. Will wonders never cease...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have a hard time accepting the argument made. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're misconstruing the argument in the article. They're not saying that we should try to whitewash people who have done bad things, and a person's bad reputation may often be well deserved. They're warning against falling into the trap of, once someone happens into bad circumstances, of creating a narrative for that person that tries to assign their circumstances as a predestined result of fate. The most insidious example I see of this is when someone contracts a serious disease such as cancer. Often the first questions asked by medical staff are regarding their lifestyle choices, which builds into the narrative that they're sick because of the way they lived.
During the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic, for example, the first questions asked to those diagnosed were often whether they lived a promiscuous lifestyle, took drugs, or engaged in gay sex. All activities which were frowned upon, and fed into the dominant societal narrative at the time that the people who were contracting AIDS were losers who contracted the disease because of their loser lifestyle. I'd argue in that case the loser edit was applied to a whole category of people, and held back progress in addressing a serious health issue.
Narrative bias (Score:4, Interesting)
This style of story-telling is ubiquitous in how the stock market is reported. Every day there's a ton of news and the market either goes up, goes sideways or goes down. Reporters see what happened then pick a sample of news and say "The market rallied on news X & Y". Barry Ritholtz had a great example of a day when the market opened low and then rallied and a newspaper published a morning edition saying the market was selling off because of A and an afternoon edition where it said the market was rallying on the same piece of news.
Fact is that we generally don't know why some things happen, real-life doesn't make for simple stories and people that lose or do bad things are also capable of being kind and charming at other times. We're all heroes of our own stories.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of sports journalism seems to work much the same way. Given random fluctuations in a player's performance, the journalists will make up reasons and assign moral failings.
Focal Point (Score:3)
Summary: "The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame."
There is a focal point for the blame: Us. We're the ones that keep the story moving, evolving, and being repeated.
It's always been true, it's just easier (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad historians have done this forever, carefully culling information to fit the predetermined narrative that they're trying to present. Don't get me wrong, sometimes this can be done in a way that makes history more entertaining & easier to understand as long as it's highlighted as what it is, but the tenor of modern (particularly American, particularly ) teaching of history is very much a linear, determinate thing: this happened, so then THIS happened, which logically led to that.
HIstory - even recent history - *must* be understood in-context. Frankly, that's what makes GOOD study of history a really hard thing. Monday-morning quarterbacking happens whether the event was last night or 1000 years ago. The people of, for example, Dark Ages Europe are practically aliens from another planet, in terms of how they saw the world; to interpret their choices (or worse, to render moral judgement on their actions) solely through the postmodern view of 2015 would be ludicrous, yet it happens constantly.
"History is written by the winners" has always been true; the internet has simply made it a sport everyone can enjoy. It's no longer academic historians fighting closeted battles over esoteric issues within their field, it's the subject of daily conversation.
Further, with the astonishingly short memory/attention span of the modern American electorate, tendentious people are able to get away with the constant revisionist presentation of events within recent memory.
Hell, half the political conversations I have, the first effort is simply to establish SOME common basis of accepted facts upon which we can even constructively argue.
Idiocracy is truly approaching.
Not ALL of us... (Score:1)
Not all — but only the losers among us...
News should be news. Not opinions (Score:1)
What I have seen over the years is a sense that news needs to be flavored for a certain audience. People used to tune in to the news for the news. Now it seems people tune in for reinforcement of their views, ideology and to be entertained. Its why we have MSNBC and Fox News. Both cater to an certain political and ideological viewer who wants their news in a way that supports what they feel. Unfortunately both can be wrong at times and neither reports some topics as a sterile report void of any opinions or
What's new? Reality noticed in "Reality" TV? (Score:1)
This has essentially always been done by people trying to advocate a particular viewpoint. Examples abound, in the courtroom, political and social arena, religions, companies and sciences. Virtually all human endeavors are subject to
Once again, humanity shoots itself in the foot... (Score:2)
This time with a large-bore shotgun. Seriously, calling this species "intelligent" is vastly overstating the case.
Everyone loves a good story (Score:2)
Even if the storty is a mostly fictional collage that has more paste and glue than content.
Narrative (Score:2)
This is just the "narrative", isn't it? You can see the same events being given different narratives depending on the race, political persuasion etc of the victim. Nothing at all new here if you're even remotely interested in how event get described in any medium.
And the opposite "winner edit" (Score:3)
Only when they fall from grace, we have no inhabitions of saying we have really felt the entire time.
There are no "looser edits", just repealing of "winner edits".
Truth is, none of us in our heart of hearts really like status, class, or privledge. We all know its entirely bullshit. Only some of us have the audacity to risk being put on a watch list. Its why, when we have the power of anonyimitty feel more free to critique these structures of power and class. Its why we obssess over privacy, and saftey, and strong crypto, and fear the NSA.
AKA the US Justice System (Score:2)
Basically what law enforcement and prosecutors have done for 100 years
Ode to Billie Joe (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
The entire new testament pretty much selectively foreshadows the ending too.
Jesus was loser-edited.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL :) That's how they get all those "prophecies" to come "true".
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is yet another reason not to be on FaceBook.
Don't post a ton of shit about your life online, and there will therefore be less material available for YOUR future loser edit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh wait, every video that you make featuring your li'l buddy Timmyboy is a loser edit. Dice, PLEASE fire these guys. Timmyboy is still very proud of his "journalism degree." He JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?
People were originally upset when SciAm started publishing articles about things like the politics behind nuclear weapons control back in (IIRC) the '80s. I was one of them, but one day there was one that caught my attention, was i
Re: (Score:3)
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Despite your low id you must be new here. The answer is yes it's too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Hi, welcome to /.! You must be new around here . . . ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if they did a better job of figuring out which ones were dupes before posting them, no? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Many people who do that are called "defense attorneys" or "prosecuting attorneys". If everybody does their job, it's a way of getting at the truth.