Twitter and the loss of shame

(TDD Warning: Some of the content on the linked articles may not be suitable for some of our younger TDD readers. Please use appropriate discretion.)

A story about Twitter was burning up the internet this past week. It involved Penelope Trunk, who broadcasted to her Twitter audience that she was having a miscarriage during a recent board meeting. She went on to express her gratefulness for the miscarriage since there are legal hoops to jump in order to have an abortion in Wisconsin. As you might imagine, her controversial statements are being met with very mixed responses. Among other things, they undermine the pro-choice cause, seeming to reinforce the callous nature that many pro-lifers assume about those who support abortion. Ms. Trunk's responses remind me of a similar article in the New York Times magazine, "When One Is Enough" which also reinforces that mentality.

Beyond that, the book The Death of Outrage also springs to mind. When Bill Bennet first penned the book, its premise was directed at former President Clinton's indiscretions in the Oval Office. But the thesis still applies. We as a culture have gradually descended into a state of apathy concerning societal morality. Such is the nature of a culture that attempts to do away with moral absolutes in favor of tolerance-based moral relativity. We lose our basis for judging right and wrong, and thus, morality gets diluted.

As I have written in the past, we have a collective conscience that has begun to atrophy. And we are not better off for it. Will we ever learn? 

Comments

[chris corwin]

- would keeping such such thoughts/feelings to one's self, rather than saying them publically, make the thoughts/feelings less wrong? is it *more* wrong to give voice to them to a friend? is it, then, *even more* to post them on the internet?

i have a some things that i want to point out.

- everyone has complex feelings/thoughts on deep issues.

- when a woman is pregnant and does not want to be, and she has a miscarraige, it should be no surprise that she is relieved.

- is it the *having* of such feelings that you are opposed to? or is it posting them in a public space (like twitter) that you find wrong here?

- when a person has thoughts/feelings that are contrary to what you believe god would have people think/feel, ought they simply keep them to themselves?

- who decides what is "okay" to say publically and what must be hidden?

- isn't this entire line of reasoning dangerously close to "thought police" ?

- how is admitting that she didn't want to have a baby undermining the pro-choice cause? is not wishing to have a baby when one is pregnant really "callous"?

- is someone always callous when they don't think/feel in a given situation the exact same way you believe god would have them? or just this specific one?

[John]

Chris,

Thoughts themselves are not necessarily wrong. We all have them. Some are right and some are wrong. For example, if I have a racist thought about someone, is that wrong? I believe it is, in that, it's not the right thought to have about that person. And if I act on that thought, that is worse.

In this particular situation, I understand that we have thoughts, and we can experience a sense of relief when something happens that we would desire in the long run. I'm not surprised in the least that she is relieved by the fact that she miscarried her child. What is a bit of surprise (thought not really) is that she felt it necessary to broadcast such a personal experience to the masses in the same way that I might Twitter that I'm at the grocery store buying milk.

I believe that while it possible to share anything in public, it is not always necessary or beneficial. For example, though there are those who seemingly have no qualms about sharing the sordid details of their sex lives with the masses who buy their tell-all books, it's not necessary or beneficial in my opinion to bring the graphic details of the bedroom into the public eye. Where we draw that line is subjective to be sure, but a line must be drawn somewhere.

And where the callousness of her particular situation comes in does not have to do with the miscarriage itself, but with the seemingly callous approach to wanting to take the life of an unborn child. There are those who choose to make that decision, and I assume it is gut-wrenching (or, at least it should be). But to jokingly consider that course of action is what makes it appear callous. Certainly, there are those who think that is okay and who don't even believe it be a child. But as I've written here before, if it's not a human being were talking about, then why not serve up human embryos at the next cocktail party in lieu of caviar?

It is my belief in God and what He thinks of human beings that informs my opinions and beliefs about the value of human babies. And God himself certainly gives people latitude to pursue free will decisions about all kinds of things, even that are contrary to His will. But I believe that when we get to a point where we can joke about the taking of innocent human life (even on a social network like Twitter), we have not taken a step closer to the greater good of humanity. And that should be of concern to more than just us Christians.

[Resident Atheist]

I am almost always in favor of more discussion rather than less. I think that by bringing things out from the dark, you eliminate the taboos surrounding them. Taboos, that I believe, often serve no purpose other than to make people feel bad about themselves. Being silent about them just perpetuates the taboo.

This is why I often talk very frankly, which most people consider crassly. I cuss, I talk about sex/abortion/death, I talk about almost anything. And I almost always use humor. I think humor is an excellent way to talk about sensitive subjects. It allows the walls to be broken down and serious discussions to arise without as much confrontation. It can help people deal. And often, the best humor is that which touches on the most dangerous topics.

I bet you wouldn't have been offended if she had tweeted to the world that she went to the hospital and they managed to save the fetus. That means it's not the tweeting or the intimacy you dislike; it's her feelings about the situation.

And if those embryos have BBQ on them like little cocktail weinies, I'm in.

(See, I told you.)

[chris corwin]

> Where we draw that line is subjective to be sure, but a line
> must be drawn somewhere.

why must a line be drawn somewhere?

really, i mean?

[andy]

I think I am now no longer able to take anything you say seriously RA, you are now in a distinguished club.

There are lines, we all have them. It's not a matter of why we have to draw them. They are there no matter what, it's whether we are able to determine where they lay.