33
   

Does mob mentality rule A2K?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:20 pm
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:

Yes.
That word is new to me.
I deemed it mostly likely to be a typo.





David
margo
 
  4  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:35 pm
@nononono,
nononono wrote:

Quote:
How close-minded of you not to know that Wink


Right? It's almost like I'm not ******* australian or something...

Well - I should bloody hope not - not with that attitude! You'd be cactus!

Whinger!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:37 pm
Mostly likely?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Mostly likely?
Thank u, Setanta.
I m not at my best; got a cold.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:43 pm
@OmSigDAVID,

Lordyaswas wrote:

Yes.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That word is new to me.
I deemed it mostly likely to be a typo.





David
ERRATUM:
"I deemed it mostly likely to be a typo" shud have been:

I deemed it most likely to be a typo.


Credit to Setanta for detecting my typo.





David


0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:53 pm
@nononono,
http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/rofl1.gif
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:55 pm
English definition of “whinger”

whinger

a person who complains repeatedly :

His friend Jon is such a whinger.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/whinger#

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/e8/e8bf7ad9f2cd6eb9406ad566407340502b05e4c6094416bc1450a18c22e95af6.jpg
coldjoint
 
  0  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:56 pm
Quote:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 12:58 pm
Quote:
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)


Pretty clear that the A in A2 stands for Alinsky.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 01:04 pm
Ah, it's Pinky . . .

http://ventureburn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Pinky-and-the-Brain.jpg

Pinky and the Brain . . . guess which one is which!
Olivier5
 
  3  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 01:05 pm
Yes, in my short experience of it, there's lot's of mob psychology around here, and little in terms of creative or original thinking. Many people seem to use this place to simply re-enforce their existing biases rather than learn new things.
djjd62
 
  3  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 01:21 pm
@Olivier5,
i never reinforce my own bias, i simply mock and deride for mock and derisions sake

mock mentality rules my A2K experience
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 01:24 pm
@djjd62,
Good for you. I guess a little derision never hurts.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  5  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 02:50 pm
@nononono,
I'm not sure how you're using "whitewash" here.

I'm assuming you intend it to mean something like "tar & feather" rather than "covering up for."

Your questions are interesting as much in how you have phrased them as in what you are asking.

I don't think there is any avoidance of raising controversial subjects in the interest of group harmony, and to minimize conflict. However I do think that if "analysis" is substituted for "decision-making" the following from the linked article you provided is demonstrated almost daily

Quote:
Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making,(analysis) and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".


I think that the majority of A2K members (and this would include me) are "close minded" in the sense that they come to these discussions with pretty firmly held beliefs and opinions already in place, but that's not particularly unique to this forum. I don't think that most members refuse to or are incapable of learning something new regarding science, history, art etc., but not many are prepared to be persuaded by opinions that don't already align with their own. I'm sure it happens from time to time, and probably more so than is ever actually acknowledged, but I doubt it’s a common occurrence.

I find that most of the people who raise this as an issue are more focused on other people being persuaded by them than the reverse.

There are lots of impediments to rational discussion in this forum, but I don't think that a drive for conformity is a major one. It's impossible to determine the precise ratio of liberals to conservatives in this forum, largely because many of the liberals deny the label fits them, but it's probably fair to say that liberals out number conservatives. As a result, on any given subject, you will tend to find more expressions of a position that can safely be described as "liberal," than one that can be described as "conservative." It's just a case of numbers, not that people who would otherwise express a conservative position are somehow being coerced by the group to express a liberal one.

Your position on feminism, for example, is not widely held by members. I don't think that anyone who has disagreed with you would actually say otherwise if you could free them from the influence of the group.

In any case, the group can't banish rational discussion of any issue. If you start a discussion on abortion you are very likely to attract a fair number of people who will provide little more than invective, but should one or two people engage you in a rational discussion you can ignore everyone else (with or without the help of forum features) and conduct your discussion. While there may actually be one or two spineless members who will never buck the general opinion, the people with whom you have engaged are probably not going to be scared off by the group. Of course you have to resist engaging with jack-asses if you are only interested in a rational discussion. A lot of people have a hard time doing this, and it incorrectly leads them to the conclusion that a rational discussion cannot be held here.

Something being logical can mean that it conforms to a set of rules, assumptions and intention. If people come to this forum to be seen as a member of one group or another and derive some pleasure and security from a tribal association, than it is quite "logical" for them to "tar & feather" someone who expresses an opinion that is unpopular with that group. If they come here to engage in rational discussion than it is not.

I think though that the tribal associations are formed prior to anyone becoming a member here, and to the extent that group-think is involved it is in establishing their opinions before they arrive here. Sure there are a few cliques, for lack of a better term, but I've seen too many instances of people turning on (as opposed to simply disagreeing with) others with whom you would expect a natural affiliation to exist to think they are much of a dynamic in this forum. A much more prevalent and unfortunate dynamic is the formulation of temporary “alliances” to mock or insult a given member. This calls to (my) mind a seventh grade girl’s room or a band of bachelor chimps rather than group-think.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 03:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not sure how you're using "whitewash" here.

I'm assuming you intend it to mean something like "tar & feather" rather than "covering up for."

Your questions are interesting as much in how you have phrased them as in what you are asking.

I don't think there is any avoidance of raising controversial subjects in the interest of group harmony, and to minimize conflict. However I do think that if "analysis" is substituted for "decision-making" the following from the linked article you provided is demonstrated almost daily

Quote:
Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making,(analysis) and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".


I think that the majority of A2K members (and this would include me) are "close minded" in the sense that they come to these discussions with pretty firmly held beliefs and opinions already in place, but that's not particularly unique to this forum. I don't think that most members refuse to or are incapable of learning something new regarding science, history, art etc., but not many are prepared to be persuaded by opinions that don't already align with their own. I'm sure it happens from time to time, and probably more so than is ever actually acknowledged, but I doubt it’s a common occurrence.

I find that most of the people who raise this as an issue are more focused on other people being persuaded by them than the reverse.

There are lots of impediments to rational discussion in this forum, but I don't think that a drive for conformity is a major one. It's impossible to determine the precise ratio of liberals to conservatives in this forum, largely because many of the liberals deny the label fits them, but it's probably fair to say that liberals out number conservatives. As a result, on any given subject, you will tend to find more expressions of a position that can safely be described as "liberal," than one that can be described as "conservative." It's just a case of numbers, not that people who would otherwise express a conservative position are somehow being coerced by the group to express a liberal one.

Your position on feminism, for example, is not widely held by members. I don't think that anyone who has disagreed with you would actually say otherwise if you could free them from the influence of the group.

In any case, the group can't banish rational discussion of any issue. If you start a discussion on abortion you are very likely to attract a fair number of people who will provide little more than invective, but should one or two people engage you in a rational discussion you can ignore everyone else (with or without the help of forum features) and conduct your discussion. While there may actually be one or two spineless members who will never buck the general opinion, the people with whom you have engaged are probably not going to be scared off by the group. Of course you have to resist engaging with jack-asses if you are only interested in a rational discussion. A lot of people have a hard time doing this, and it incorrectly leads them to the conclusion that a rational discussion cannot be held here.

Something being logical can mean that it conforms to a set of rules, assumptions and intention. If people come to this forum to be seen as a member of one group or another and derive some pleasure and security from a tribal association, than it is quite "logical" for them to "tar & feather" someone who expresses an opinion that is unpopular with that group. If they come here to engage in rational discussion than it is not.

I think though that the tribal associations are formed prior to anyone becoming a member here, and to the extent that group-think is involved it is in establishing their opinions before they arrive here. Sure there are a few cliques, for lack of a better term, but I've seen too many instances of people turning on (as opposed to simply disagreeing with) others with whom you would expect a natural affiliation to exist to think they are much of a dynamic in this forum. A much more prevalent and unfortunate dynamic is the formulation of temporary “alliances” to mock or insult a given member. This calls to (my) mind a seventh grade girl’s room or a band of bachelor chimps rather than group-think.



Anyone who applies the "in group" notion to A2K...has never visited A2K.

The "in group" cannot agree on whether or not the sky appears blue during a clear day.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  -3  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 03:29 pm
Wow, there are a lot of people bringing up non-related issues here trying to derail this thread.

If you want to derail something, go derail your mother from the backside.
NSFW (view)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  5  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 03:38 pm
@nononono,
nononono wrote:

Wow, there are a lot of people bringing up non-related issues here trying to derail this thread.

If you want to derail something, go derail your mother from the backside.


It would seem that you chose not to take my advice:

Quote:
...should one or two people engage you in a rational discussion you can ignore everyone else (with or without the help of forum features) and conduct your discussion.


With comments like this one, it also doesn't seem you're really all that interested in rational discussions.
nononono
 
  -1  
Thu 10 Jul, 2014 03:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
With comments like this one, it also doesn't seem you're really all that interested in rational discussions.


That's not true. It just angers me what a bunch of hypocrites the members in question are because they've accused me of derailing their threads by not staying on subject (even when I was only responding to them going off subject themselves)...
NSFW (view)
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 07:58:16