johnmd20 said:
You're going to compare a regional letter to the editor in a newspaper in 1982 or a crier in a public square in versus the global reach of Twitter, TMZ, and the internet in general? The concept is the same, the platform and number of eyeballs has changed significantly. As have the ramifications. To say it's the same is kind of insane. And you are not insane. So take a breath.
In 1982, I lived in a town of about 5000 people, all of whom knew each other and each other's families by sight, if not proper name. They shopped at the same stores, went to the same church and read the same newspaper.
Since the days of town criers, most people have known their neighbors. Those with riches and power were more "known of" than "known personally", but people damn sure knew who the owner of the local factory was because it was the only job in town.
The raw number of eyeballs has certainly skyrocketed. But I think you are misjudging the rate and scale of those numbers when compared to (your choice) 1982 or when town criers worked, etc. People have gossiped FOREVER. There has literally always been A.) a societal "norm" and B.) talk about those who do not conform to A. And especially when the subject was rich and/or powerful and in a position to affect the housing, health, employment or general welfare of the populace.
That the ramifications have changed is certainly true. In the past (as recently as 2009, in fact) a rich, powerful guy like Donald Sterling could tacitly admit (by monetary settlement) that he discriminated against minorities as part of building a billion dollar fortune. Now, when an obviously bad person like Donald Sterling with a lifetime of transgressions says something that does not fit the societal norm, he is subject to ramifications. Frankly, I'm astonished. Billionaires and millionaires have, in the past decade (just a few examples, as we don't have the bandwidth to list all of them): gotten away with beating their girlfriends on tape, practicing segregation and housing discrimination, and stealing several billion dollars from taxpayers. Rarely if ever has a truly rich and powerful person faced personal consequences. That Sterling was ostracized - even if it probably won't hold up - is proof that society has chosen to at least address THIS instance. And that's all - he's been ostracized. He wasn't hung, he wasn't burned, he wasn't crucified - he was ostracized, told he could no longer be part of a private club. We here have a saying about that - LOLBOOHOO.
For every example of someone being "internet mobbed", I can give you a thousand or a million of people being abused, humiliated or otherwise "destroyed" by people like Donald Sterling - people with money and power. Of actual lynchings for people who dared to speak against the Sterling types of the past. Of people forced to figuratively lick the boots of a Sterling type.
Using terms like "lynch mob" in this context is, at best, tone deaf and at worst, deliberately provocative. The term has a specific, historical meaning and invoking in this context, to describe what happened to Donald Sterling, is wrong IMO.