Answer:
Brainliest
Explanation:
I found this article which I feel is appropriate on the subject. It differentiates between shaming for the sake of shaming, and shaming to hold someone accountable. Or bad shaming vs. good shaming in the words of the author.
There are times when the level of shaming rises above what many feel appropriate.
There was an instance where a woman mentioned in the above article sent a tweet many deemed inappropriate to her 170 followers, someone saw it and reported on it and the internet went nuts and she was fired by the time her plane landed. Was it a smart thing to do on her part, No. But, in my opinion, that was an instance of shaming that went to an inappropriate level.
I got some criticism (rightfully so) for an article I posted (and removed about 24 hours later) on a runner that pretended to run Boston, and used another runner’s name and time. It was fascinating – but could have been told in a way that kept her identity private, or not told at all. I made a misttake. I was wrong for posting that article. I’ve learned from that and have accepted the criticism.
What about Rachel Dolezal? Most would argue that the reporting on her was appropriate. She rose to a position of power, partially by misrepresenting herself. It’s not much different than a fitness coach that embellishes his credentials to gain clients.
When someone is paid by clients and has earned sponsorships based at least partly on their running ability, presenting evidence that some of their accomplishments are not legitimate is not shaming for the sake of shaming, it is holding them accountable.
Their clients deserve to know the facts. They deserve the truth. They may chose to ignore this information, but they deserve the opportunity to make that decision. If you hire a financial planner, or a C.P.A, or go to the doctor, you would want to know if there is evidence that their credentials are less than they claim. The same holds true if you spend your money to hire a trainer/running coach. You may not care whether they qualified for Boston or not, but you may care that this person that you trusted and admired may have been less than honest.
There are those that want me to release the names of all the runners that have been identified from Boston ’15. In my opinion, most of those cases would fall under the ‘Bad shaming’. I am responsible for everything I post. It would not feel right to me if the firefighter mentioned in the Runner’s World article lost his job over his decision to cut the course to qualify for Boston. The proper consequence, in my opinion, would be disqualification from both the qualifier and Boston.
