Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

Unwed pregnancies are a social problem in that they often leave the woman without means of financial and/or emotional support. Stigmatizing the woman does nothing to alleviate the pregnancy and/or the lack of support. I don't know about what you learned about reproduction, but there has been only one virgin birth in the history of this world, and that one occurred some 2000 years ago. It takes two people of the opposite sex to make a human baby. But it is virtually always that it is just the women whom pays the price when unwed and pregnant.

Poor eating habits have their own rewards. Us stigmatizing the malnourished does nothing to help them eat better. Educating the ill informed, and providing the necessary funds for food security does a much better job. SEE http://www.deseretne...y.html?pg=all�� BTW You can be overweight and still be malnourished

Video games are mostly just a waist of time, but they can be a gentle diversion if used for a limited amount of time. Same with the TV. BTW the percentage of American homes with a TV is higher than the percentage of American homes with a car.

My position is pretty easy to understand. Use the most effective, least invasive, means to achieve the desired goal. Make no mistake about it social stigmatizing/bullying people is a type of punishment. Do you think overweight people don't know they're fat? Do you really believe that they don't hear the rude comments from the inconsiderate? Do you really believe calling people rude/cruel names changes behaviors? Do you really believe that out of sight is out of mind, that if we just don't see them, they cease to exist? We as a society have become very good at punishments. Lets try something that is actually effective for a change.

Actually, not sure I would favor the ongoing stigma regarding video games as they have been shown to increase certain physical and mental skills. I was pretty liberal with regards to my policy regarding video games played on the computers ten years ago while raising my kids and as a result two of those kids developed computer skills which payed off big dividends in their collegiate and career experiences, and all of my kids were way above average in their understanding of computers. I am not as sure about the hand-held video games, but am keeping an open mind. I think some of the criticism of video games is due to generational non-understanding -- but could be wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, not sure I would favor the ongoing stigma regarding video games as they have been shown to increase certain physical and mental skills. I was pretty liberal with regards to my policy regarding video games played on the computers ten years ago while raising my kids and as a result two of those kids developed computer skills which payed off big dividends in their collegiate and career experiences, and all of my kids were way above average in their understanding of computers. I am not as sure about the hand-held video games, but am keeping an open mind. I think some of the criticism of video games is due to generational non-understanding -- but could be wrong.

I don't believe in stigmatizing them. However whatever benefits to certain physical and mental skills they achieve. It is at the expense of large muscle exercise and the use of their imaginations. I allowed my children to play age appropriate video games(such as they were back in the Stone Age. ), but set strict time limits on playing them. After that it was go play outside, find a good book to read, make sure all your school homework is caught up, etc; etc; etc..

[go_utes01]

Unwed pregnancies are a social problem in that they often leave the woman without means of financial and/or emotional support. Stigmatizing the woman does nothing to alleviate the pregnancy and/or the lack of support. I don't know about what you learned about reproduction, but there has been only one virgin birth in the history of this world, and that one occurred some 2000 years ago. It takes two people of the opposite sex to make a human baby. But it is virtually always that it is just the women whom pays the price when unwed and pregnant.

Poor eating habits have their own rewards. Us stigmatizing the malnourished does nothing to help them eat better. Educating the ill informed, and providing the necessary funds for food security does a much better job. SEE http://www.deseretne...y.html?pg=all�� BTW You can be overweight and still be malnourished

Video games are mostly just a waist of time, but they can be a gentle diversion if used for a limited amount of time. Same with the TV. BTW the percentage of American homes with a TV is higher than the percentage of American homes with a car.

My position is pretty easy to understand. Use the most effective, least invasive, means to achieve the desired goal. Make no mistake about it social stigmatizing/bullying people is a type of punishment. Do you think overweight people don't know they're fat? Do you really believe that they don't hear the rude comments from the inconsiderate? Do you really believe calling people rude/cruel names changes behaviors? Do you really believe that out of sight is out of mind, that if we just don't see them, they cease to exist? We as a society have become very good at punishments. Lets try something that is actually effective for a change.

Again, and please read carefully as I have said this several times already, stigmatizing harmful behavior does not equal stigmatizing people engaged in that harmful behavior and certainly does not require name calling. Through social pressures, people should be made aware that not all choices/behaviors are equally good/praiseworthy for the individual or for society. That is all I mean by social stigmatization/social shaming/social pressure. We may have different definitions of stigmatization, fine. We can acknowledge that difference.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, and please read carefully as I have said this several times already, stigmatizing harmful behavior does not equal stigmatizing people engaged in that harmful behavior and certainly does not require name calling. Through social pressures, people should be made aware that not all choices/behaviors are equally good/praiseworthy for the individual or for society. That is all I mean by social stigmatization/social shaming/social pressure. We may have different definitions of stigmatization, fine. We can acknowledge that difference.

Here is what the dictionary defines a stigmatization:

stig·ma·tizedstig·ma·tiz·ing

Definition of STIGMATIZE

1

a archaic : brand

b : to describe or identify in opprobrious terms

2

: to mark with stigmata

— stig·ma·ti·za·tion noun

No exactly what I'd call nice terms.

[go_utes01]

Here is what the dictionary defines a stigmatization:

stig·ma·tizedstig·ma·tiz·ing

Definition of STIGMATIZE

1

a archaic : brand

b : to describe or identify in opprobrious terms

2

: to mark with stigmata

— stig·ma·ti·za·tion noun

No exactly what I'd call nice terms.

It seems that we have been using a term of art in this thread, namely "pragmatic stigmatization" or alternatively, I have used social stigmatization, social shaming, social pressure, behavioral stigmatization. While I believe that social pressure/behavioral stigmatization is effective and helpful in curtailing harmful behaviors, I do not agree with name calling or stigmatizing individuals. Just want to make that clear. I believe in the pc world we now live in, it is increasingly difficult to impress on people that not all choices/behaviors are equally valid and beneficial. And, as a society, we should engage in social pressure/behavioral stigmatization to make clear that some choices/behaviors are preferable and praiseworthy. Thanks.

[thesometimesaint]

I prefer the real definitions of words. It makes effective communication much easier.

If your approach really worked I'd fully support it, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with being pc. It has everything with using the right tool to do the job. A hammer is useful in driving nails into wood to make a cupboard, but it is terrible at putting the dishes in that cupboard.

While punishment may extinguish bad behavior it can never replace that bad behavior with good behavior. So either the bad behavior quickly returns, or is made worse. As a wise man once taught me negative attention is better than no attention at all. That a girl that is emotionally abandoned by her parents is much more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, in the vain hopes that someone will love them, than a emotionally confident girl with supportive parents.

I'm all for praising/rewarding good behavior. I am all against thinking that all we have to do is punish bad behavior, and it will disappear.

[USU78]

I'm all for praising/rewarding good behavior. I am all against thinking that all we have to do is punish bad behavior, and it will disappear.

Who made that argument?

The issue is, as it always is with legislation and community values, is there on the whole a more beneficial result from imposing a punishment or social sanction than simply ignoring the undesirable behavior?

When girls who "got in trouble" were removed from regular school and put into a separate school, did we see:

50% of all births being to single mothers?

The horrific death tolls from AIDS?

The horrifically high incidence of venereal disease?

The horrifically high incidence of FAS/FAE?

Were those on the whole a good thing?

Were they worth removing a social sanction on the few in order to induce better behavior in the whole?

[Stone holm]

Who made that argument?

The issue is, as it always is with legislation and community values, is there on the whole a more beneficial result from imposing a punishment or social sanction than simply ignoring the undesirable behavior?

When girls who "got in trouble" were removed from regular school and put into a separate school, did we see:

50% of all births being to single mothers?

The horrific death tolls from AIDS?

The horrifically high incidence of venereal disease?

The horrifically high incidence of FAS/FAE?

Were those on the whole a good thing?

Were they worth removing a social sanction on the few in order to induce better behavior in the whole?

I want to make sure that I am not being accused of hyperbole. You are talking about having unwed pregnant teenagers expelled from school, and you are talking about sequestering all gays in order to avoid the spread of AIDS right?

[go_utes01]

Placing social stigma on undesirable behavior is not punishment. Failing to address the bad behavior (or even, at times, celebrating it) and allowing the terrible consequences, both individually and on society, is the unfortunate outcome of your, and apparently much of society's, current mode of thinking.

[Stone holm]

Placing social stigma on undesirable behavior is not punishment. Failing to address the bad behavior (or even, at times, celebrating it) and allowing the terrible consequences, both individually and on society, is the unfortunate outcome of your, and apparently much of society's, current mode of thinking.

Which thinking is that? Social stigma is branding someone or something. Whether it is good or evil depends on your perspective concerning what is being branded. I don't have a real problem with stigmatizing smokers, although I tend not to do that anymore since I understand some are trying to quit drinking and are using smoking as a crutch. Bouncing pregnant teenagers out of school as a form of social stigma isn't effective, since it just aggravates a situation. The first time I sat on a school board i was all for bouncing athletes out of HS athletics for violating training rules, by the second time I was on a school board I had begun to question the wisdom of that since the last thing those kids needed was more unstructured time on their hands. I have learned a heck of a lot from my seven kids, foster child, and three step-children -- I think that is what has changed my attitude on a lot of this stuff. But I acknowledge that some stigma works, but its not a scalpel as some have suggested its more like a very blunt meat cleaver. The question comes down to an assessment of collateral damage and where you are -- I tend to favor using drones instead of boots on the ground to take out foreign enemies, my attitude, however, might be slightly different if I lived where drone strikes were a common occurrence.

[thesometimesaint]

Who made that argument?

The issue is, as it always is with legislation and community values, is there on the whole a more beneficial result from imposing a punishment or social sanction than simply ignoring the undesirable behavior?

When girls who "got in trouble" were removed from regular school and put into a separate school, did we see:

50% of all births being to single mothers?

The horrific death tolls from AIDS?

The horrifically high incidence of venereal disease?

The horrifically high incidence of FAS/FAE?

Were those on the whole a good thing?

Were they worth removing a social sanction on the few in order to induce better behavior in the whole?

You're the one that is calling for quarantining/punishing people. I never said ignore the problems. I'm for going at the root causes.

Solve the problem of parents emotional detachment from their own children an out of wedlock births will greatly reduce.

Provide cheap and easily available drugs for the treatment of AIDS, plus a proper education on dangerous sex practices. This is most easily accomplished by parents, but history has shown us that relying on parents alone isn't successful. We would still have the AIDS virus but it would not be anywhere near the problem it is now.

Same with other STD's

There plenty of successful strategies to curtail the use/overuse of alcohol. The LDS Social Services has a good one. Legally enforced Prohibition and use of jails(stigmatizing) really didn't solve the problem.

[wenglund]

Choices have consequences. When we as a society decided not to stigmatize certain behaviors, the result was an explosion of unwed pregnancies and an increase in STD's, with the ripple effect of at-risk children destined to drop out of school and commit crime. We decided that making people feel uncomfortable about committing certain behaviors was worse than the explosion in unwed pregnancies and all the social ills resulting therefrom. Some people apparently feel that the trade-off was worth it, and wish to continue as is, Others of us view it as asinine. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 23, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Choices have consequences. When we as a society decided not to stigmatize certain behaviors, the result was an explosion of unwed pregnancies and an increase in STD's, with the ripple effect of at-risk children destined to drop out of school and commit crime. We decided that making people feel uncomfortable about committing certain behaviors was worse than the explosion in unwed pregnancies and all the social ills resulting therefrom. Some people apparently feel that the trade-off was worth it, and wish to continue as is, Others of us view it as asinine. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Choices always have consequences. When we choose to add additional punishment which master are we serving?

[Stone holm]

Choices always have consequences. When we choose to add additional punishment which master are we serving?

It's a question of the efficacy of a stigma. In America the largest influence on teenagers is not the parents, but their peers. As a result in order for stigma to be effective it must be generated by the teenagers themselves. Now stop and imagine what form stigma takes in the hands of a teenager. Now stop and consider whether you would really want your teenager to be applying that kind of stigma.

[wenglund]

Choices always have consequences. When we choose to add additional punishment which master are we serving?

This doesn't address what I said--which I see as telling. And, it is also contains several incorrect presuppositions. Stigmatizing behaviors isn't an additional punishment, rather it is aversive stimuli intended to prevent bad consequences/punishment. And, choosing to apply aversive stimuli isn't so much about serving one master or another, but about doing what works best and makes the most sense.

However, given all the stigmatizing "woes" and condemnations pronounced in the scriptures, and passages about shame and guilt and uncleanliness, etrc., and statements like those found in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and Romans 6:21. it looks to me like stigmatizing is the way of my Master, Jesus Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

This doesn't address what I said--which I see as telling. And, it is also contains several incorrect presuppositions. Stigmatizing behaviors isn't an additional punishment, rather it is aversive stimuli intended to prevent bad consequences/punishment. And, choosing to apply aversive stimuli isn't so much about serving one master or another, but about doing what works best and makes the most sense.

However, given all the stigmatizing "woes" and condemnations pronounced in the scriptures, and passages about shame and guilt and uncleanliness, etrc., and statements like those found in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and Romans 6:21. it looks to me like stigmatizing is the way of my Master, Jesus Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It may feel like punishment, but it is really for your own good, why its an act of love, it installs a holy sense of shame, guilt, and lack of self worth, better far that a few should feel this act of love than a whole generation not behave according to our standards. Why it is an absolutely noble thing to do, a patriotic compulsion to save a nation.

[wenglund]

It's a question of the efficacy of a stigma. In America the largest influence on teenagers is not the parents, but their peers. As a result in order for stigma to be effective it must be generated by the teenagers themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that the stigmas that worked in the past were only generated by teenagers? If so, my experience is quite different. Teenagers may have been heavily involved in the stigmas, but they certainly weren't the one's generating them. I don't know what planet you grew up on--Animal House, perhaps?

Now stop and imagine what form stigma takes in the hands of a teenager. Now stop and consider whether you would really want your teenager to be applying that kind of stigma.

Now stop and consider whether these imaginings have any basis in reality. And, once you realize that they don't, then stop and mull over the disturbing levels of social ills resulting from a lack of stigmas. And, stop, and realize that correcting that proliferating problem ought to be your priority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It may feel like punishment, but it is really for your own good, why its an act of love, it installs a holy sense of shame, guilt, and lack of self worth

I see how you tried to falsely slip in "self worth" in order to make your own embarrassing position look better. It didn't work. It only made you look all the more desperate.

...better far that a few should feel this act of love than a whole generation not behave according to our standards. Why it is an absolutely noble thing to do, a patriotic compulsion to save a nation.

I don't expect those of you harking from the Great and Spacious Building to comprehend my position, but as the scriptures say, "fools mock, but they shall mourn."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have been removed from the thread because of the insults.

[thesometimesaint]

This doesn't address what I said--which I see as telling. And, it is also contains several incorrect presuppositions. Stigmatizing behaviors isn't an additional punishment, rather it is aversive stimuli intended to prevent bad consequences/punishment. And, choosing to apply aversive stimuli isn't so much about serving one master or another, but about doing what works best and makes the most sense.

However, given all the stigmatizing "woes" and condemnations pronounced in the scriptures, and passages about shame and guilt and uncleanliness, etrc., and statements like those found in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and Romans 6:21. it looks to me like stigmatizing is the way of my Master, Jesus Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Christ himself didn't stigmatized the woman taken in adultery. He told her to go her way and sin no more. Moreover he has the right to judge. We don't.

[Stone holm]

Are you seriously suggesting that the stigmas that worked in the past were only generated by teenagers? If so, my experience is quite different. Teenagers may have been heavily involved in the stigmas, but they certainly weren't the one's generating them. I don't know what planet you grew up on--Animal House, perhaps?

Now stop and consider whether these imaginings have any basis in reality. And, once you realize that they don't, then stop and mull over the disturbing levels of social ills resulting from a lack of stigmas. And, stop, and realize that correcting that proliferating problem ought to be your priority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade Englund has it been so long since you were a teenager and have you no experience with teenagers that you can't imagine what "stigma" looks like in the hands of teenagers? I do, I was one once and I have raised plenty and observed plenty -- and if you think that stigma in the hands of a teenager looks anything like the nice gentleness of how the Church expects us to behave -- you live on another planet than I do. Teenage stigmatizing is effective on their peers -- and it is brutal, just short of outright violence.

[thesometimesaint]

Wade Englund has it been so long since you were a teenager and have you no experience with teenagers that you can't imagine what "stigma" looks like in the hands of teenagers? I do, I was one once and I have raised plenty and observed plenty -- and if you think that stigma in the hands of a teenager looks anything like the nice gentleness of how the Church expects us to behave -- you live on another planet than I do. Teenage stigmatizing is effective on their peers -- and it is brutal, just short of outright violence.

One small correction "--and it is brutal, just short of outright violence." should read as -- and it is brutal, and not short of outright violence.

[Stone holm]

One small correction "--and it is brutal, just short of outright violence." should read as -- and it is brutal, and not short of outright violence.

That depends on the community context, obviously it can morph into violence in some communities in both the teenage and adult categories, it depends on the culture. In the former Confederacy there is a greater proneness to stigma translating into violence, in certain urban areas there is also a tendency towards stigma provoking violence, and in some areas where the adults are very ideologically dedicated and tend to rely on violence in forcing conformance to norms. I would say it is the exception, however, not the norm amongst teenagers.

[thesometimesaint]

Thought you might like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/22/what-has-changed-is-that-it-is-harder-for-us-to-be-nice-to-kids-departing-veteran-principal/

[Stone holm]

Thought you might like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/22/what-has-changed-is-that-it-is-harder-for-us-to-be-nice-to-kids-departing-veteran-principal/

Interesting.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting.

I think there is a tie-in with this discussion. How easy it has become to stigmatize someone as a slow learner(stupid, lazy, etc., etc., etc..) when all they needed was supporting help from people who cared.