Shunning

[Friday]

The topic of shunning has been brought up many times as a way to enforce shared social mores/standards of decent behavior on individuals without invoking the violence of the state.  But as far as I know, it has never yet been tried by the Porcupine community in New Hampshire.  There are individuals who have been public about their personal dislike for other individuals.  There are a few individuals who have been banned, either temporarily or permanently, from this and other discussion fora for their behavior.  But there has never been a widespread attempt to shun anyone, with the possible exception of Zack Bass, who was told by a few people that they would not welcome him to New Hampshire if he chose to move here.

Here are some of the things that have come up on this very discussion forum over the past few years that have been committed (in some cases, allegedly; in some cases, convicted in court; and in some cases, self-acknowledged) by members of the Porcupine community, none of which motivated even a discussion of shunning:  murder, wife beating, child abuse, child neglect, theft, fraud, attempting to physically harm another Porcupine, threatening to kill other Porcupines, borrowing money and not paying it back, incurring debts and acknowledging one has no intention of paying them back, misusing other people's property, contract violation, and most recently, animal abuse.  With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?  (Or did I just miss the thread where someone was accused of rape?    )

It seems to me that most people, myself included, dislike personal confrontations and avoid them if at all possible.  It's so much easier to condemn someone behind their back via emails, phone calls, and whispered conversations at the bar then to look them in the eye (or, erm, the computer monitor) and say boldly "I disapprove of your behavior!  You are no friend of mine. You are not welcome in my home or at my table."

I have no personal experience with shunning; it's not commonly practiced in modern American culture, except maybe in high school.  I'm guessing that, to be effective, it requires a relatively small community.  In my opinion, the Porcupine community has already grown too large for it to be effective, even assuming that a number of people were in agreement in the desire to shun a particular person, because there would most likely be a group of Porcupines who disagreed on the benefit of shunning that person and would continue to socialize with them.  Then what began as an attempt to enforce shared standards of decent behavior would devolve into high school-style cliques.

I wonder if shunning is a human behavior that requires, for most people, years of mental preparation in order to internalize it and be ready to wield it as a sort of weapon.  In the movie "Witness", the grandfather tells the mother when he catches her violating Amish social mores that if she doesn't watch it, he'll have to shun her.  You can tell that he loves her and would find it very painful to do such a thing, but he would do it because it's part of his culture and the force of that would override his personal feelings for her.

All of this is rambly, I know, but I think the point I'm trying to get at is that, at this point, I don't believe that shunning will ever be used by the Porcupine community.  If it were ever going to be, it already would have been.

[NJLiberty]

The problem I see with shunning is that it requires a coordinated effort by all the members of the community, and it needs to be consistently applied. There would need to be a well defined, previously agreed upon, understanding of what does and doesn't cross the line. That seems to be a persistent problem with our community. There are any number of different philosophies and ideals at work here, many of which are not all that compatible. For some folks act A would be perfectly acceptable, while others would view it as a heinous crime. Those same folks might find a different action to be acceptable that the first group decries. Shunning doesn't generally work unless everyone is in on it. That is what makes it work in high schools and for the Amish. The whole world is in that small area. If you get shunned there you have no place to go for social acceptance.

Our community is too spread out without the concentrations of people needed to make this truly effective...yet. Of course sometimes shunning by a single individual is enough to get someone to reconsider their actions, depending on how much influence that person has with the miscreant.

That being said, I don't see a better solution than shunning. Where do you go after you refuse to have anything to do with the individual? The other alternative would be to initiate violence against that person and for most if not all that isn't a solution.

George

[Friday]

I agree with all your points.

That being said, I don't see a better solution than shunning. Where do you go after you refuse to have anything to do with the individual? The other alternative would be to initiate violence against that person and for most if not all that isn't a solution.

That is, indeed, the question.

[freeman4liberty]

It isn't really that complicated.  Shunning does not take a coordinated effort.  We had a problem with some guy around here.  He continually insulted a common friend of the group.  It wasn't constructive criticism either.  Things got a little heated (just a little), and then the insult giver crossed the line.  No person or property were harmed, but he crossed the line. 

After that he was uninvited to a thanksgiving day, I stopped talking to him.  Other people begged for him to stop insulting our friend. 

Eventually the giver of insults decided that he didn't want to be in our group anymore.  No coordinated effort no deep thought was required.  When you think of shunning you should think about it as a personal decision.  It might be frustrating if you really want to get back at the person and other people don't choose to shun as you do.  I suggest that the goal should not be getting back at the person the goal should be to avoid putting yourself in a place where the one you might shun will offend you again. 

If you get upset because other people don't shun someone you think they should shun, then this emotion may encourage you to try to control others.  I believe trying to control others is one thing that many people on this board are against.  Persuasion is the only weapon I use, and it's very slow acting indeed. The hope is that Persuasion will lead to a better outcome and a healthier outcome than any alternative. 

[Russell Kanning]

what some people call shunning ... I wouldn't practice .... other than that ... you may be describing some of the things I and others have already done here in NH.
If I am not going to enforce my displeasure with another persons behavior ... then the most I can do try to convince them to turn from their wrong actions, and disassociate myself from that person while they continue that behavior (or until they pay someone back etc.),  and speak against their actions.
I am trying to follow the models set up by Jesus in Matthew 18, and Paul when he  talked about problems inside a church community. I don't do it very well.
I think you are right ... we only have a small amount of influence in the whole world, but quite a bit in our own community. If someone leaves our little groups there is not much we can do about it.
What to do about bad actions gets the heart of many issues we are facing including what sort and in what ways do we use force of any kind to fix, curb, punish, prevent ... poor to down right evil behavior.
Many people have gotten mad at me for being too hard or too soft on bad behavior amongst my friends and associated people. For some I am too rough for wanting to separate myself and my well behaving friends from wrongdoers and for others I am not using enough force on potential or actual evil.
I think this is a good topic to discuss, especially in person.

I think you can do great harm and good by practicing "shunning" or other similar techniques.
God opposes the proud wrongdoer, but gives grace to the humble repentant (changed) one. He also wants us to show mercy like he does when appropriate and oppose evil consistently.

[LordBaltimore]

With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?  (Or did I just miss the thread where someone was accused of rape?    )

Former Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child

By JENNIFER KEEF
Thursday, February 26, 2009

SOMERSWORTH - A former Somersworth School Board member and state representative candidate was indicted this week on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault involving a minor.

Timothy Logsdon, 33, of 183 High Street, allegedly engaged in a pattern of sexual assault on more than one occasion with a victim who is now 5 years old.

A grand jury handed up the indictment this week and it was released Thursday.

In September, Logsdon was served a protective order by the Strafford County Sheriff's office, which was said to have emanated from the Columbia County Family Court in Hudson, N.Y.

Information as to who filed the order and why were not disclosed, but Capt. Lee Clement with the sheriff's office said then that a protective order carries some similarities to a restraining order.

Also in September, in accordance with the terms of the protective order, Somersworth police removed a number of weapons from Logsdon's home.

Police Capt. Russ Timmons said at the time that they removed pistols, rifles and shotguns - "some intact and some in a state of assembly or disassembly"- as well as semiautomatic pistols, a host of ammunition and gunpowder.

Logsdon has lived in Somersworth since 2002 and works as a computer consultant at the University of New Hampshire. Erika Mantz, media relations director for the university, confirmed Thursday Logsdon is still an employee of the university. Mantz said the school had been aware of the protective order but nothing else as of Thursday.

Logsdon ran three consecutive times as the sole Republican candidate for District 2 state representative but was never elected. He served less than one year on the Somersworth School Board between 2006 and 2007 and last year was involved in petitioning for a tax cap in the city.

Logsdon will be arraigned on Monday, March 9, at 2:30 p.m. at  Strafford County Superior Court.

An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

[toowm]

I'm not sure that you need a small community for shunning to be effective. My example would be ebay or other online communities that track interactions, or even discussion forum karma. I would agree that true shunning does not happen, because individuals can still function and survive within the broader society, even if a community is not interacting with them. Kind of like a shunned Amish person can "go English," but not be accepted back into the community.

There are a number of people in the porc community that make me uncomfortable. If they need help, especially if it is in areas where I agree with them, I will likely help. If I get burned by them, I am less likely to help them in the future. I do more things with folks I am more comfortable with, but I want to keep freedom advancing with everyone despite any misgivings.

I do not believe in "unforgivable sins" or a quasi-"death" penalty as it comes to individuals. Everyone is flawed and often some of the best liberty activists have done very anti-liberty things in their past. It is tougher to forgive more recent aggressions, but the door should always be left open a crack.

I wonder if early movers will turn out to have more personality quirks, be more radical, or just harder to get along with relative to folks that will move in the future?

[Friday]

With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?  (Or did I just miss the thread where someone was accused of rape?    )

Former Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child

By JENNIFER KEEF
Thursday, February 26, 2009

SOMERSWORTH - A former Somersworth School Board member and state representative candidate was indicted this week on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault involving a minor.

Timothy Logsdon, 33, of 183 High Street, allegedly engaged in a pattern of sexual assault on more than one occasion with a victim who is now 5 years old.

A grand jury handed up the indictment this week and it was released Thursday.

In September, Logsdon was served a protective order by the Strafford County Sheriff's office, which was said to have emanated from the Columbia County Family Court in Hudson, N.Y.

Information as to who filed the order and why were not disclosed, but Capt. Lee Clement with the sheriff's office said then that a protective order carries some similarities to a restraining order.

Also in September, in accordance with the terms of the protective order, Somersworth police removed a number of weapons from Logsdon's home.

Police Capt. Russ Timmons said at the time that they removed pistols, rifles and shotguns - "some intact and some in a state of assembly or disassembly"- as well as semiautomatic pistols, a host of ammunition and gunpowder.

Logsdon has lived in Somersworth since 2002 and works as a computer consultant at the University of New Hampshire. Erika Mantz, media relations director for the university, confirmed Thursday Logsdon is still an employee of the university. Mantz said the school had been aware of the protective order but nothing else as of Thursday.

Logsdon ran three consecutive times as the sole Republican candidate for District 2 state representative but was never elected. He served less than one year on the Somersworth School Board between 2006 and 2007 and last year was involved in petitioning for a tax cap in the city.

Logsdon will be arraigned on Monday, March 9, at 2:30 p.m. at  Strafford County Superior Court.

An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

WOW.  I did miss that thread (if there ever was one).  Thank you.

[zackbass]

I would agree that true shunning does not happen, because individuals can still function and survive within the broader society, even if a community is not interacting with them.

Exactly.  So many times I have seen advocates of Shunning say that the Shunned would have no way to get food or repairs or whatever.  I have pointed out that WalMart doesn't care, they just sell me what I want... and even in a smaller community some entrepreneur is sure to set up a "Shun Purchasing Agency" to buy goods for the Shunned from The Community - for a fee.  Oh god how the money rolls in.

Shunning is especially unlikely to "work" (that is, coerce the Shunned without the use of Force) in a libertarian community, even a small one, for a couple of reasons.  First, there is the prevalence of those Entrepreneurs I just mentioned.  Second, many libertarians are not looking for buddies or BFFs, they just want to find a place where their neighbors leave them the hell alone.  "Please don't toss me in that briar patch, Massa!"

[Russell Kanning]

I agree also that a return to whatever community needs to be available.

We all fit in many groups or communities and leave them, try to change them, or help kick  people (or groups) out of them all the time. Some of us do it violently, some not so much. I only want to be in groups where the interactions are free flowing and voluntary. Whatever tent I am in, i want to be comfortable with the others present.

Maybe I will have to come out with my own manifesto about this topic and it will help some people understand why they may or may not want to be in communities with me, or why i might be leaving theirs or trying to oust them from mine.

[Friday]

I'm pleased that people are taking this subject seriously, because I do think it's a serious subject.  I can't honestly say I feel kinship with all of my fellow FSP participants and friends, and since that is how I have largely defined my social circle for the past 4 years, it's making me do some serious thinking about possible solutions.

It isn't really that complicated.  Shunning does not take a coordinated effort.  We had a problem with some guy around here.  He continually insulted a common friend of the group.  It wasn't constructive criticism either.  Things got a little heated (just a little), and then the insult giver crossed the line.  No person or property were harmed, but he crossed the line. 

After that he was uninvited to a thanksgiving day...

One problem with this strategy is that, so far, many of us have been in the habit of posting open invitations to events in places where other Porcupines are likely to see them eg. this forum, various Yahoo lists, and Facebook.  Either a tactful way needs to be found to post such invitations with caveats such as "the following list of people are NOT invited..."  , or public posting of events such as Thanksgiving Day Dinner will need to cease for those who choose to be selective in which community members they wish to associate with.

Maybe I will have to come out with my own manifesto about this topic and it will help some people understand why they may or may not want to be in communities with me, or why i might be leaving theirs or trying to oust them from mine.

This is an interesting idea, but will get quite complicated if we all start writing our own manifestos.  Kat and Russell are hosting a picnic; must read their manifestos to see if I'm welcome.  Barskey says he'll be there; must read his too.  Some guy in Grafton I've never actually met says he'll be there, and I don't even know the URL to his manifesto.  What to do??

Honestly, I'm already wondering how the hell Taproom Tuesday works anymore.  The pro-Ivy faction on this side of the room, and the anti-Ivy faction on that side? The pro-Travis faction on this side, and the anti-Travis faction on that side?  The in-the-system folks on that side, the outside-the-system folks on that side, and the self-professed anti-system anarchists deeply entrenched in the political system on that side.... doesn't a room only have four sides???  Or does everyone temporarily set aside their differences for that which matters most i.e. beer?   

Perhaps something along the lines of that organization that Cathleen, Mike F. and Alan formed a few years ago, the one with the weird Irish name that escapes me at the moment, would work.  The major problem I had with that attempt was that it was open to all, which to me sort of defeated the purpose.  Perhaps we could form one or more "Elks Clubs", fraternal organizations, etc. with a defined set of principles.  Even that becomes problematic, because, for example, Russell would probably include that he prefers not to associate with people who want to discuss electoral politics, but that would be overly exclusionary for myself.  Hmmmmmmm. 

[Pat K]

Freedom is messy , aint it.

[KBCraig]

Freedom is messy , aint it.

Beats the hell out of perfectly ordered slavery.

[Pat K]

Freedom is messy , aint it.

Beats the hell out of perfectly ordered slavery.

AH DUH

[MengerFan]

Honestly, I'm already wondering how the hell Taproom Tuesday works anymore.  The pro-Ivy faction on this side of the room, and the anti-Ivy faction on that side? The pro-Travis faction on this side, and the anti-Travis faction on that side?  The in-the-system folks on that side, the outside-the-system folks on that side, and the self-professed anti-system anarchists deeply entrenched in the political system on that side.... doesn't a room only have four sides???  Or does everyone temporarily set aside their differences for that which matters most i.e. beer?   

This is why I am really dreading PorcFest. I hope my expectations are proven wrong.