Compared to other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador has not been particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Thank God we’re surrounded by water, indeed.) But with thousands of Newfoundlanders working in the hot spot of Alberta, some of them inevitably brought an unwanted visitor back with them. And people on social media are reacting as you’d expect:
In screenshots emailed to CBC, rotational workers revealed vitriol ranging from suggestions for mandatory extended quarantine to death threats.
As one aviation worker described it, "Our own people want us to stop working or just not come home, or worse, have our families locked up with us.… We are treated like dirt in our own province."
Taken together, these remarks carve out an alienating landscape for families caught between financial ruin and pariahdom, where simply going to work means risking not only their health, but their reputations.
[…]
Online shaming of COVID patients pops up nearly everywhere the virus does.
In Grand Bank, the site of a recent mini-cluster, a man discovered police in his driveway after a neighbour reported him for hanging Christmas lights on his own property, according to an online group for rotational workers.
In New Brunswick last month, Cortland Cronk, 26, found himself labelled a "super-spreader" after an interview with CBC about how he'd contracted the virus while travelling for work. He's now the butt of memes, anonymous reddit comments (one of which has labelled him an "ass clown"), and various spoof videos on TikTok.
Rotational workers have responded by setting up their own support groups, and even Christmas gift exchanges, on social media. By and large, you know what they haven’t done? Decided, “hey, these people threatening and shaming me are absolutely right and I should just lock my family and I away for a few months.?
It’s not surprising that people who find themselves shamed on social media dig in even further, according to Aaron E. Carroll at The New York Times:
…angry judgments put people on the defensive. They fear they will be reproached for their choices. They’re not wrong. When we see people gathering in groups or going about without a mask or engaging in other activities we deem unsafe, we condemn them. Too often, we do so publicly.
Shaming occurs in private, too. I see family and friends scolding people for certain activities they engage in. Some of the activities are easy to denounce, like attending large indoor rallies. Others are smaller perceived infractions, like getting a massage or playing on a sports team. The anger is there either way.
All of this judgment is counterproductive, even when the behavior in question is indisputably reckless. For one thing, drawing attention to aberrant unwanted behavior risks “normalizing” it. Although very few parents refuse to immunize their children (only about 1 percent get no vaccines at all), widespread condemnation of the so-called anti-vaxxers makes it seem as if they are a significant movement. The same is true of the anti-lockdown protesters: They were small in number — indeed, most Americans were perfectly willing to comply with shelter-in-place policies — but the disproportionate news coverage of them made it seem otherwise.
[…]
While some people may have legitimate reasons to be upset (say, if they were infected by a co-worker who refused to wear a mask or stay home after developing flulike symptoms), anger and hectoring are rarely the way to make things better. Shaming others might make you feel good about yourself, but it rarely corrects bad behavior. Indeed, it often backfires. It can harden feelings and drive bad behavior underground. That’s exactly what we don’t want.
Consider adolescents and sex. We can tell young people never to have sex and then demean them if they do anyway and contract a disease or get pregnant. But the evidence suggests it’s much more productive to talk about safe sex and to help them deal with any adverse consequences of having sex. This approach also makes it more likely they will come in for testing, counseling and treatment if they need it.
Likewise, we can lecture people about eating more healthfully and stigmatize those who don’t, but it rarely results in behavioral change. It’s much more effective to assist them, compassionately, in determining what prevents them from making better decisions.
Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke at Persuasion make a similar point, adding that there’s a fine line between debate and “moral grandstanding” meant not to change minds, but to convince others that they’re one of the good people:
But why shouldn’t we want other people to know how good we are? Setting aside the fact that we probably aren’t as good as we think, grandstanding diminishes our ability to have productive moral conversations. Morality should be about helping others. But grandstanders use it to enhance their status.
With the psychologist Joshua Grubbs, we recently conducted studies that suggest grandstanding accounts for some of the polarization in society. People are increasingly endorsing more extreme political views, and have more negative reactions to those on the other side of arguments. Grandstanders know that they can gain status in their ideological in-groups by presenting themselves as having the most morally pure beliefs. In discussions with people who want to present themselves as the most pure, they subtly shift their views to become more extreme.
Nobody sets out to become an extremist, but grandstanding puts people on a natural course to that destination. In order to distinguish yourself, you have to be more remarkable than others who are also trying to be remarkable. Grandstanding pushes us into increasingly divided camps, leading us to say and believe things not because they’re true, but because we think they will impress our friends or embarrass our enemies.
You might think that the answer is to start calling people out when we suspect them of grandstanding. But we doubt that strategy will be productive. We can’t read people’s minds, and therefore can’t prove that they are grandstanding. Instead, we suggest two responses. If you think someone is grandstanding, ignore them. If they stop getting the attention they crave, they might give up. More importantly, avoid grandstanding yourself; no one is immune to the temptation.
Moral talk can still make the world a better place. But inflating everything into a moral tirade is a surefire way to make the world worse.
The problem is, for many people, it just feels so good to proclaim our virtue and render judgment upon others. Look at how many of us piled on Justice Sacco when she made a dubious joke about AIDS in Africa. (When the history of the internet is written, I think that will be regarded as the turning point where social media turned into digital Salem.)
I was bullied mercilessly in junior high and high school. But that didn’t stop me from joining in the mockery and gossip about other unpopular students. It made me feel like part of the group for a while. Now, multiply that by about 100 million and you have Twitter.
Bob Dylan and Stevie Nicks just entered into multi-million-dollar deals for the publishing rights to their songs. (Also, David Crosby is looking for a buyer, which reminds me of the Miller Lite commercial with Bob Uecker trying to trade his old baseball card for free beer.)
This deal concerns only the publishing rights for Dylan’s existing songs — the music and lyrics for all of the 600 or so songs he has composed since his career began, and the songwriting royalties generated that way. That means that any time “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “Tangled Up in Blue,” or any other Dylan composition gets streamed, sold, played on the radio, or used in a commercial enterprise like a TV advertisement or film spot, the songwriting royalty check that would have gone to Dylan will make its way to UMPG’s bank account instead. (The same goes for any other artist’s cover of a song written by Dylan — and for the Band’s 1968 classic “The Weight,” which was written by Robbie Robertson but whose publishing Dylan owned.)
[…]
This deal does not cover the master rights to Dylan’s recordings — that is, the rights and royalties associated with any of the albums and songs he’s released as a performer — so there’s no more likelihood of Blonde on Blonde: The EDM Remixes or Freewheelin’ 2 than there was last week. This also means that there should be no change to future installments of Dylan’s ongoing Bootleg Series of unreleased vault recordings, which continue to be controlled by Dylan, his management, and his record company.
As long as I can remember, the number-one rule of rock stardom is, never sell your publishing rights. You don’t want some corporation licensing your song for a commercial and making all of the money from it and potentially even suing you for plagiarizing yourself. So what is different now?
Ultimate Classic Rock explains how streaming, old age, and COVID changed everything.:
Modern-era changes in royalty payments and tax implications involved with estate planning are likely part of this decision-making process. Crosby, who rose to fame with other Dylan acolytes in the Byrds before co-founding Crosby Stills and Nash, also said the on-going coronavirus pandemic played a key role.
"I can’t work, and streaming stole my record money," Crosby said via Twitter. "I have a family and a mortgage and I have to take care of them, so it’s my only option. I’m sure the others feel the same."
Primary Wave and Universal have caused the most recent ripples, but the company making the biggest splashes in the pool is the London-based Hipgnosis Songs Fund. Founded in 2018 by artist manager Merck Mercuriadis, Hipgnosis had a market capitalization of $1.66 billion as of last week. They boast a portfolio of some 60,000 songs, including the catalogs of Journey, Blondie, Richie Sambora, Chrissie Hynde, Nikki Sixx and Steve Winwood, as well as 10 of the Top 30 most streamed songs on Spotify.
The upshot is that these arrangements mean greater exposure for acts by licensing their songs for movies, commercials, television shows and video games. With streaming services putting less money in the hands of artists, these new lump-sum deals, Mercuriadis believes, benefit them more than the corporations.
The corporations hope to make back their investment, and then some, in the long run. If you’re a Boomer-era rock star like Dylan, stuck at home and unable to tour because of the pandemic, it’s understandable why you’d want to cash out for an estimated $300 million you can spend as you wish.
It’s like the creators of Instagram selling out to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012. It’s now worth a hundred times that much, so in one way, they lost out. On the other hand, they got a freaking billion dollars.
Selling your publishing rights is still a terrible idea if you’re a young, up-and-coming musician. But if you’re already a wealthy, established legend - and therefore able to make a much better deal - it makes more sense.
Speaking of Facebook, this one’s making the rounds:
You don’t have to be a Gen-X Canadian to get it…actually, yes, you do have to be a Gen-X Canadian to get it.
That’s from 1992, so it’s actually a little after my time. I grew up with the Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe, in which she allowed chain-smokers to run rampant:
The early 90s was when I first got out among people (and realized that I knew absolutely nothing about the world outside of kitchens, barns and books. :) Including TV, to which I was initiated with a Star Wars scene of storm troopers appearing out of the mist, which promptly gave me nightmares. These days, Star Wars is on the list of things I’d re-watch anytime and the only nightmarish thing is the bad sequels. ;p
So I actually remember that video and its inescapable tune, which I’m probably going to be humming intermittently for the next few days as I try to stay focused on my big pre-Christmas file.
That period was also my first serious experience with being bullied...by an entire community that didn’t understand what had really happened. Had they understood, it would probably not have helped. The experience taught me that people will gang up on you first and ask questions later, as Justine Sacco found out. The only way out is to stand up tall and show them who you are by NOT responding to the bullying. At a time at which instinct drives one to run and hide, it’s hard to stand up and be yourself. But people will chase you harder if you run. Calmly facing them is the best chance at getting them to stop long enough to think about whether they are doing the right thing. Not to mention that when you make yourself appear calmer than you are, it helps you calm down and think clearly.
The shoe lady needs to stop running after him and tell him that if he lights her house on fire, he’ll be the one putting it out. :D (Having been raised to be responsible for others waaay beyond what’s reasonable, it’s no accident that I’m drawn to guys who are responsible while allowing me to be responsible for myself. Sometimes lessons learned late in life are the best.)
Putting people on the defensive in any form (also thinking about your post from yesterday here) never works. It may look like it does, since the instinctive response is to join the group in bullying some other unfortunate (I read an article recently where exactly this was happening with sexual abuse at a boys’ school). But it just repeats the cycle. To actually change things for the better, one has to step out of the cycle and do something different. Like standing up and being assertive... and then redirecting the situation to get people to communicate.