43 points Michelangelo11 2 hours ago 71 comments

nephihaha 2 hours ago | parent

I was discussing this the other day. Shame and shaming are alive and well. Especially if you do not agree with whatever paradigm is being pushed, like supporting sports team X or not holding the prevailing opinion.

dude250711 1 hour ago | parent

The "-phobic" seems to be the suffix to use these days.

Just slap it on your favourite term and hurl it at the opponent.

delichon 1 hour ago | parent

It seems unfair that there's no suffix for a rational, non-disordered fear.

mawadev 1 hour ago | parent

Are you load-bearingophobic?

fc417fc802 37 minutes ago | parent

HN is rife with slopphobia.

WorldIQ 1 hour ago | parent

Agree. Shame is very much not dead.

Gen Z is an entire generation paralyzed by social anxiety.

layer8 1 hour ago | parent

Shaming being alive and well doesn’t imply that shame is.

shoobiedoo 1 hour ago | parent

I don't really know if I would call that shame, though. In Japan if you wear your shoes into someone's house you'll be lambasted with shame, but that's got a deep religious and cultural foundation behind it-- the person being shamed gets their nose rubbed into their mistake so that they don't do it again. There is a "re-centering" of the person so they get another chance.

Nowadays in the west, holding an option contrary to whatever herd you find yourself in falls into a binary label. There is no redemption for you, there is no second chance. "You voted for X? You're nothing but evil thoughts and vacuity where a human could have been".

plantain 1 hour ago | parent

Sit on public transport and listen to everyone playing music / watching tiktok without headphones. Shame is dead.

dmd 1 hour ago | parent

I think there’s a difference between knowing you’re doing something wrong and not caring, and not even knowing you’re doing anything wrong. What you’re describing is usually the latter.

alpinisme 54 minutes ago | parent

They definitely get glares and annoyed looks from fellow passengers. And they must be oblivious if they’ve never noticed other people distractingly listening to music next to them or whatever.

jhbadger 1 hour ago | parent

That I really don't get (and I experience it a lot using transit for my commute) . It seems more common now, but you'd think it would be less common. Headphones used to be bulky things, now Bluetooth earbuds are tiny things easily put in your pocket -- why not use them?

TFNA 54 minutes ago | parent

Because fuck you, that's why.

More seriously, whenever I ask a young person on public transport to use headphones (and luckily I live in a region where I can safely do that and enjoy some authority as an older person), the response is usually that the youth doesn't have headphones on him for whatever reason (doesn't own any, left them at home, whatever). But with the breakdown of this taboo, people don't feel that not having headphones should stop them from sweet TikTok dopamine.

exitb 44 minutes ago | parent

In some places it's shameful to show one's hair, or to eat while you walk in public. In some, people don't think about those things at all. In others, the ability to do those things can be an expression of personal freedom.

What you experience is a cultural difference.

jhbadger 34 minutes ago | parent

Well, not quite. Not showing your hair or not eating in public may have meaning in somebody's culture/religion, but it doesn't hurt anyone else either way. Playing video/music without earphones does. And surely people must have experienced it from the other side when people nearby were playing music they didn't care for. I think it is reasonable for people to ask themselves "Would I like it if someone near me did <X>?", and if the answer is 'No' to not do it themselves. Maybe this is "shame" or maybe simple empathy.

tbrownaw 30 minutes ago | parent

> What you experience is a cultural difference.

In that not all cultures recognize causing negative externalities as a bad thing?

dguest 49 minutes ago | parent

In my experience it's dominantly teen-aged kids who are just figuring the world out, or in more unfortunate but very rare cases 30-somethings who never quite grew up.

I was that shameless annoyance once too. It doesn't mean shame is dead.

ofrzeta 4 minutes ago | parent

In the German ICE trains we have some compartments that are supposed to be silent ("Ruhebereich"). It has become something of a running joke that you can bet on some business asshole (not a teen!) to sit in there and loudly talk on the cell phone. There are a lot of signs there that are really hard to ignore https://www.fr.de/assets/images/12/543/12543991-1920712711-1...

amiga386 1 hour ago | parent

pfdietz 1 hour ago | parent

Shame is also a form of social control. Be ashamed you don't know your place, lower class person.

Lack of required shame used to be called being "uppity".

passwordoops 1 hour ago | parent

Like most things in life, moderation is key

pfdietz 1 hour ago | parent

Consistency is also important. Making arbitrary distinctions just to cloak personal preferences is hypocritical.

toasty228 1 hour ago | parent

I'll tell that to the dude who pees in my staircase every other week, I must be just confused and too rich to understand.

pfdietz 1 hour ago | parent

That's causing objective damage. We don't invoke shame for behaviors that cause that.

classified 1 hour ago | parent

You don't? Shame on you.

belorn 23 minutes ago | parent

Different countries must have different standards for that. Here, the result would be that the person owning the staircase would call a cleaning firm and then send the bill to the person, in combination with a warning that eviction may happen if further misuses of the property occur. If it happened every other week, the person would be evicted, and I suspect the bills from the cleaning company would be enough to make that happen regardless.

If they couldn't identity the person they would setup cameras or a passage system to identity who uses the staircase until the problem can be solved. The law here allows apartment owners to setup cameras in the case of resolving problems with property and shared spaces. For example, in my building there are cameras in the garage and the garbage room, and entry require tags that get recorded when opening the door. Those intrusive actions where done to address past theft and misbehavior which in turn cost money to the company who own the building.

classified 1 hour ago | parent

Being uppity to your betters is one thing. Being inconsiderate towards everyone is something else.

dguest 44 minutes ago | parent

The article is all about people in positions of power, not lower class people.

K0balt 42 minutes ago | parent

Shame is an internalised negative emotion that is a negative anticipation of social stigma. In general, it is a usefulness in thing. If you can’t look back at your behaviour a few years ago and find a source of secret embarrassment, you probably aren’t growing.

The framing of shame as a bad thing instead of an important mechanism of self regulation is destroying maturity and social cooperation at an obscene rate, and future generations will be the ones that pay the price in a society where government has stepped in with coercive force to moderate behaviour at a much more granular level in a society that no longer governs itself.

In this it is important to distinguish between shame and shaming. Shame is the useful mechanism of self regulation. Shaming is social aggression and is all too frequently hijacked by astroturfed “social movements” and vile and petty narcissists to project power. Shaming has its place, but needs to be legitimate social sanction or it’s just another form of unregulated violence.

Unfortunately, the reaction of society has been to reject shame, which is about as useful as rejecting fear, for example. Fear is a useful and necessary mechanism of self regulation, and people that lack it entirely tend to live short lives. That said, too much is crippling. Shame is much the same, but is a social contract. Societies that lack it tend to fail. Societies with too much are stifling.

Fortunately, now we have the CCP and Palintir, so we can shrug off the yoke of shame and give up over that mechanism of self regulation to social credit scores and surveillance capitalism. I’m not sure that will be so much better.

Treasure your shame. I’ve lived in societies where it has been replaced by violence, and it’s not better.

skybrian 1 hour ago | parent

Could they change the rules so that there’s no or less incentive to “tank?”

layer8 1 hour ago | parent

From the article: “And so, this past summer, the N.B.A. announced a full revamp of the system, with a new approach that penalizes the worst teams in the league. We will see how long this remediation lasts.”

kleiba2 1 hour ago | parent

I assume by "shame" they mean "manners".

functionmouse 1 hour ago | parent

and by "manners" they mean "people acting how I think they should act"

anonreplier 56 minutes ago | parent

maybe they just mean consideration for others

fc417fc802 43 minutes ago | parent

Yes, a shared understanding of the rules. Common context. Culture.

There are in fact expectations of your behavior and that is not a bad thing, despite western popular culture attempting to tell us otherwise.

functionmouse 18 minutes ago | parent

In an industrial society, too many rule followers results in people being reduced to cattle. We need a subset of our society to be ungovernable in order to stave off tyranny, because historically, smart people aren't trying or succeeding at that. As another commenter in this thread stated, though under different context, our bodies wouldn't make the venom if we didn't need it to survive.

tbrownaw 26 minutes ago | parent

Well, the enforcement mechanism for manners.

mxmilkiib 1 hour ago | parent

fuck shame, attend to guilt

layer8 1 hour ago | parent

manapause 1 hour ago | parent

Shame us what you lose when your turn to someone or something you trust for empathy and instead receive the opposite. Our body-personality would not produce venom if we didn’t need it to survive.

shib71 1 hour ago | parent

Shame was more effective in the past is because it came with consequences - lost business, lower standing in the community, fewer romantic prospects. It used to be part a healthy survival instinct. Without repercussions, shame is just a handicap and those who don't have it have a massive advantage.

scotty79 1 hour ago | parent

I don't get it. On one hand people are lamenting departure of shame, on the other they complain how easy it is to get your life ruined by becoming a target of internet hate for a minor transgression.

Maybe the shame didn't disappear, just fell prey to increasing inequality where one end of the spectrum has very little where the other gets absurd amounts?

fyredge 57 minutes ago | parent

I think these two concepts go hand in hand. Perceived cancel culture is the thing that pushed some people to disregard the concerns of others entirely and live without shame.

Another example is the concept of involution and lying flat in China. You can't have both if you assume that the entire population is equal. Too much involution breeds lying flat. Too harsh of a cancel culture (for minor faux pas, not sexual assault) breeds contempt.

fc417fc802 50 minutes ago | parent

If the consequences become a step function it makes intuitive sense that the gradual downstream behavior would go away.

rcxdude 34 minutes ago | parent

Well, in practice shame is a local effect: it only matters if it's coming from people that you respect. Some people being angry at you in a community is going to affect you most severely when you're a member of that community: otherwise it's just how much that community can effectivity harass you (also something that scales with how close you are to it). This does mean that 'cancel culture' has a horrendous bias towards 'friendly fire' in its results.

gnz11 1 hour ago | parent

Regarding the article's example of "tanking" in NBA games in the opening paragraph, what would solve this is a switch from the franchise system to a promotion/relegation system. No team would bench their best players or throw a game when relegation to a lower division is on the line.

dguest 1 hour ago | parent

> Evil genius is just a lack of shame.

-- Cory Doctorow

https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2026-04-11...

roenxi 1 hour ago | parent

There seems to be a bit of a gap vis a vis solutions in the article - someone could set the system up so it doesn't incentivise tanking. The punishment for tanking should be that the teams performed poorly for no compensation. It's all very well to set up a system to encourage poor behaviour then shame the people who behave rationally. But it is much more sustainable in the long term to make good behaviour also strategically optimal.

> Post-Hinkie, the league experimented with variations of the lottery, but none of them could deter teams from losing on purpose.

I struggle to believe they've tried everything unless they're also talking about players betting against themselves (which probably is impossible to overcome without bans). Incentives aren't easy things but there has to be some system where winning > losing.

On that topic we're actually pretty lucky - in the real world, the winning strategy over long time-frames is almost always talking, prosperity and cooperation. Not obvious why the powers that be are so keen to involve other strategies that routinely deliver worse material and moral results.

zetanor 1 hour ago | parent

Strange that this short article mostly focuses on the absence of shame in business and politics, which has been a constant for many times my lifetime. And we should blame social media for this, too? The only difference now is that everyone knows about backroom dealing. If the author didn't conspicuously omit the absence of shame in journalism, I feel like he'd be a step closer to an interesting observation.

pessimizer 47 minutes ago | parent

> If the author didn't conspicuously omit the absence of shame in journalism

They awarded themselves Pulitzers for publishing false stories. They don't go back and correct them, they just pretend like they never existed (and one day will silently delete them from the archives.)

They showed some shame after the Iraq War over continuously lying about WMD on behalf of the state, there was a little shame expressed after trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and I guess they decided that they were never going to do that again. They in fact put one of the largest spreaders of disinformation in charge of The Atlantic. The Atlantic is supposedly the leading magazine for the opposition.

Every day that the Washington Post kept the PropOrNot story up, even taking into consideration the lengthy corrections that kept being appended to it, made me realize that these institutions had no shame at all. I'm not sure if people are connected enough to particular institutions to have shame about what they do - they have backers, who will find them another place if the place they're at now becomes too hot for them. Straight from politics into being a lobbyist into journalism into a think tank into a consultant for a Middle East dictator into head of ethics for a tech company into head of ethics for a hedge fund, then back into politics again.

dmje 1 hour ago | parent

How is shame different from "just being a decent person"?

dguest 54 minutes ago | parent

It's the same thing, and both are vulnerable to disingenuous applications of cultural relativism.

You'll see similar arguments on this thread: "shame is just what you don't approve of", etc. Yes, it's just about being a decent person, and no, scientists still haven't discovered a moral axis in the universe that says what that means. Unfortunately we're in a position where we have to explain that "just be a decent person", which is an inclination shared by 95% of people anyway, isn't some vestigial instinct that modern humans should be ridding themselves of.

layer8 50 minutes ago | parent

I believe all four combinations exist in practice.

xelxebar 38 minutes ago | parent

Shame is a feeling, "decent person" is a moral characterization. The former might be part of an insentive structure leading to the latter.

Frieren 1 hour ago | parent

Shame is only effective in a society of equals.

If one day you may become my boss better treat you well. If one day anyone may become my neighbor better treat anonymous people well. If my kid may end married with yours then I better treat you well.

For billionaires shame makes no sense. They will never have to confront the people that they abuse. Inequality makes consequences go away. The powerful have not shame because they feel entitled to not need it.

Even average people knows that they only need to care about the powerful. It is better to wrong your neighbor than the powerful politician that will retaliate against you.

Eliminate inequality and people will care again.

TFNA 57 minutes ago | parent

Shame is deeply entrenched in societies of great inequality and social hierarchy. There's a lot of reading within anthropology on honor cultures.

tbrownaw 28 minutes ago | parent

> For billionaires shame makes no sense. They will never have to confront the people that they abuse.

This sounds like you're agreeing with the article about consequentialism / "optimization culture" being the cause.

coolThingsFirst 1 hour ago | parent

Shame for what?

OF prostitutes and iShowSpeed make more money than neuroscientists. There are more incentives to be a bozo than an educated “pillar of the community”.

tbrownaw 22 minutes ago | parent

I thought that was only the top <very few>, and most just made pocket change?

dguest 1 hour ago | parent

Football / Soccer had "flopping" [1], which anyone who watched it in the early 2000s would recognize: every foul was accompanied by a "victim" writhing on the field in agony, in excess of anything you'd see in much more violent sports.

Apparently it's diminished a bit in recent years, but not because it's clearly shameful behavior: the leagues started issuing bans.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_(association_football)

sdcfgy 57 minutes ago | parent

Apart from Argentina in the World Cup.

igsomething 50 minutes ago | parent

It wasn't about diving in particular, but rather post-match revisions and sanctions becoming more common to punish unsportsmanship. Add VAR in recent years, and the newest "1 minute out" rule for fake injury, and today players don't gain anything from diving.

jrrv 59 minutes ago | parent

45% of this article is about the NBA

stego-tech 58 minutes ago | parent

Shame isn’t dead. Specific kinds of shame are increasingly on the way out, particularly when it comes to individuality and self-expression, but shame itself isn’t dying or dead so much as accountability flatly does not exist anymore.

When the author bemoans a lack of shame in how the NBA teams tank games to improve later draft odds instead of playing out every game with ferocity and pride, what they’re actually bemoaning is the lack of consequences for such negative behavior - and misattributing that to a lack of shame by fans towards the team instead of a lack of consequences from governing bodies. It’s a naive fantasy of how the world works rather than a stinging critique of real problematic behavior.

It also ignores the grim reality that many people simply have no concept of shame in any sense that could correct their behavior. Zuckerberg absolutely has no shame, nor does Musk or Thiel or Bezos; it is impossible to shame them into better, healthier behavior, just as it’s impossible to shame Sony into manufacturing physical media again, or shaming the driver that just cut you off in traffic without a turn signal and used their vehicle as a missile to get their way by honking your horn or flipping them off. Shame alone means fuck all absent consequences.

And the thing about shame is that it too is a weapon that has been wielded to horrific ends in the past. Relying on shame alone is how you get McCarthy and the Red Scare, how you repress LGBTQ+ identities, how you segregate people based on skin color or ethnicity or national origin. Shame is toxic, and the few areas we rely on shame as a weapon are also areas of some of the greatest societal harms at present: homelessness, malnutrition, poverty, convicted felons, all are shamed for existence to the point they’re encouraged to disappear from society by any means other than improvement, like a one-way gate rather than a crisis to be addressed. In light of how we currently weaponize shame, I don’t think relying on expanding its use to address grievances is the right call.

alpinisme 46 minutes ago | parent

> the lack of consequences

Not saying the article is right, but the point is supposed to be that social norms used to (or should) be sufficient. People should feel and be made to feel shame for flagrant disrespect of core principles that their participation in a system would seem to entail (like playing to win).

Speaking for myself, shame has certainly sometimes been enabling, sometimes disabling. Wanting to live up to an image I have of myself and what I should be (and feeling ashamed when I don’t) is a pretty core part of how “I” work. I agree shame can certainly turn toxic, but there are times when it is fair to say, “you should feel ashamed of yourself” (including in some circumstances, “for driving that kid to suicide by making him feel ashamed of who he is”).

znpy 54 minutes ago | parent

In a society that puts an individual’s own self-interest before society’s collective interest… yeah, that’s the obvious consequence.

This was so easy to predict it was actually predicted.

And we cannot go back unless we acknowledge that a lot of things we take for granted are shameful.

And I’m gonna go ahead and make a controversial example, just to give an explicit idea of the kind of topics are normalised: casual abortion.

mmillin 38 minutes ago | parent

I think a lot of the loss of shame is a result of multiculturalism. The more cultures you accept, the fewer behaviors you can openly shame.

As a benign example, eating food with your hands rather than utensils. In some cultures this is rarely ever tolerated, in others it depends on the food item, and in others still you might always eat with your hands. These will be at odds and you have to decide what is OK to shame and what isn’t.

I think we as a society bias against shaming in seeking inclusivity, but some things can be lost along the way as well. To use the eating example again, eating with your hands instead of utensils may be more likely to spread disease (or maybe it needs to be coupled with a stronger shame against _not_ washing hands). I don’t know what the right approach is to strike a balance here in a multicultural society.

K0balt 32 minutes ago | parent

That is an interesting possibility, and seems plausible. When in Rome… becomes not so much about getting along, and more about maintaining social coherence, fostering prosperity and security.

tbrownaw 13 minutes ago | parent

> As a benign example, eating food with your hands rather than utensils. In some cultures this is rarely ever tolerated, in others it depends on the food item, and in others still you might always eat with your hands.

I know there are some strange people who eat pizza with a fork, but is there actually anyone who does that with say hamburgers?

Tsarp 33 minutes ago | parent

Might have to do with a lot of thought leaders and influencers pushing this.

In my own life/career I have seen that over a long enough horizon that lower shame seems to generally work out for people on the long run if you can back it up with some amount of confidence and competence.

mrngld 30 minutes ago | parent

Makes me think of my boy John Adams; "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Moral relativism is emptiness all the way down, we're reaping what we sowed.