The Public Shaming to Conspiracy Theory Pipeline: How Call-Out Culture is Fueling Extremism

research + reactions
Written By Emily Phelps

You’ve felt the satisfaction, right? That moment you stick it to someone online. Someone who deserves it. That rush—the dopamine hit when you call someone out and get those sweet likes, shares, and fire emojis? It’s real. Researchers have found that online outrage is literally addictive, reinforcing itself through positive social feedback. 

And like all addictions, it comes at a cost.

We’re trading long-term progress for short-term gratification. We’re hitting "send" on the dunk response instead of asking whether public humiliation will actually create the change we claim to want. We’re choosing the high of punishment over the hard work of engaging in good faith. And then we wonder why things feel worse, not better.

I know the trendy wisdom says impact matters more than intent. But let’s be honest—that's a flawed binary. Intent does matter, and impact isn’t a one-way street. It’s shaped by interpretation, context, and response. We can’t claim to care about outcomes while ignoring how those outcomes are co-created. And what actually happens when we handle harm with a megaphone instead of a mirror? We stop making space for growth and start driving people away.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: We are shaming people not just for causing harm—but for being wrong, for being ignorant, for learning out loud. And the backlash to that shame is not some neat little lesson in accountability. More and more, it’s radicalization.

You want to know how otherwise reasonable people end up shouting about globalist lizard people on Telegram channels? Let’s trace the pipeline, because our righteous outrage is often the opening act.

The Impact/Intent Tug-of-War

"Impact over intent" became a rallying cry for people who were tired of others excusing bad behavior with a shrug and a “Well I didn’t mean it!” And that’s fair. But what started as a helpful reframe has turned into a blunt-force moral cudgel. There’s no room for growth when the punishment for ignorance is social death.

When someone stumbles—whether it's a clumsy comment, an outdated term, or asking a question that’s a little too 101—they’re too often labeled as harmful rather than misinformed. That difference matters. One is a behavior you can address. The other becomes a fixed identity you’re sentenced to.

Naomi Klein explores this in Doppelganger: A Trip Into the Mirror World—how people who feel cast out by their own political or cultural tribe can fall into the arms of the very ideologies they once rejected. It’s not just about misinformation; it’s about identity. When you lose the group, you lose the script. And in that vacuum, the fringe welcomes you with open arms.

"Conspiracy culture doesn’t seduce with facts. It seduces with belonging." — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger: A Trip Into the Mirror World

Shame Isn’t a Teaching Tool—It’s a Trigger

Let’s be clear: shame is not the same as accountability.

Jon Ronson’s So You've Been Publicly Shamed lays this out with clarity. When people are publicly humiliated, they don’t typically reflect and evolve—they recoil, harden, and retreat. Ronson shows how the internet’s appetite for outrage turns human beings into cautionary tales, stripping away complexity and leaving only caricature.

Public shaming doesn’t lead to a more just society. It leads to fear, anger, and disconnection—the perfect ingredients for conspiracy movements to thrive.

The Pipeline Is Real. And We’re Building It.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Someone messes up—maybe they say something dumb.

  2. Social media finds it.

  3. The pitchforks come out.

  4. That person is dogpiled, doxxed, cut off from their communities.

  5. They start questioning the people who once told them they belonged.

  6. Cue the conspiratorial YouTubers, influencers, and ragebait grifters whispering, *"You were right to be skeptical. We have the answers."

This is a pattern, and we’re all at risk. Because we all get things wrong sometimes. We all have dissenting or unpopular views, particularly when we ignore nuance and context. And when we’re talking about emotionally charged topics, which we need to be doing, simply being mistaken or ill-informed can turn an average person into the target for swift, overwhelming, and disproportionate backlash. When there’s no path for redemption or growth, some of those individuals drift toward spaces that promise acceptance and validation, even if those spaces are reactionary or conspiratorial.

The pipeline doesn’t start with malice. It often starts with people feeling unheard, shamed, and pushed out. If we make no room for imperfection, curiosity, or growth, we create an open door for those eager to exploit that alienation. We have a responsibility not only to the society we want to thrive but also to the actions we take that could inadvertently undermine progress, intentional or otherwise.

Everyone is wrong about something. Everyone. If we don’t leave room for people to be wrong—and to do better—we’re just handing them over to the grifters who will.

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening. And while far-right manipulators like Steve Bannon and friends have mastered how to manipulate identity politics, we’re over here alienating people for not knowing the newest acronym. In 2013, we gleefully ruined a woman’s life because she was bad at comedic timing. Justine Sacco was on a flight to Africa and Tweeted, “"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!" She was mocking that level of racist nonsense. But instead of taking a moment, the internet couldn’t wait for her to land and find her life in shambles. And it was only the beginning of what would become this online purity test we use to gain fake internet points.

We’re not asking for better behavior—we’re demanding perfect fluency in evolving moral frameworks, and punishing anyone who’s still learning. That’s not justice. That’s gatekeeping dressed up in virtue drag.

If Outcomes Matter, So Should Our Approaches

If we’re gonna chant “impact over intent,” then let’s get real about the impact we’re having.

We’re contributing to a culture where curiosity is punished, where people are terrified to speak until they’ve passed some invisible purity test. That doesn't lead to a smarter, more inclusive society. It leads to people Googling “why is everyone so sensitive” and ending up in the comment section of a Tucker Carlson clip.

Do we want fewer extremists? Or do we want better enemies?

Because if the goal is actually progress, then we have to stop pretending that public shaming is the tool that gets us there. It’s not. What gets us there is a culture of correction, not cancellation. Of invitation, not exile.

So What Do We Do Instead?

  • Call in, not just out. Public accountability should be proportional to public harm.

  • Operate in good faith, and when in doubt, ask for clarity before reacting.

  • Remember ignorance is curable. Malice is a different beast.

  • Ask if you’re correcting someone for their benefit—or for your ego.

  • Model the kind of grace you’d want if you were the one who got it wrong.

  • Accept that discomfort is part of growth—for them and for you.

We’ve got enough people trying to tear each other apart. Let’s not do their work for them.

Additional Resources

Emily Phelps
Next

A Ranty Em Podcast: Shouting into the Void