Most of my instincts are to leave this alone and let my previous thoughts stand on their own. A smaller part is telling me to respond to what I saw in the first thread by JLN and the difference in the second. I should probably listen to the greater part but, oh well....
JLNobody wrote:
We definitely should simply ignore the rabble, the "barbarians" laying seige to our little island of civil-ization.
is not the same as
JLNobody wrote:j_b, I am not identifying anyone as barbarian or rabble. My suggestion is that each of us who considers anyone's actions to be barbarian, i.e., too unruly to withstand, should simply ignore them. If enough individuals ON THEIR OWN, but not by committee, ignore my actions, I will have been isolated or marginalized on the basis of the effects of my action on individuals. Those individuals will, in effect, have voted me out. I will not be "official" expelled, I will be "unofficially" ostracized on the basis of my failure to get along with enough individuals. It will be my own (un)doing. What's arrogant about that?
In the first case I see the, "We definitely should simply ignore" as a call to action by the group, and the reference to the rabble to fall under definition 2
here
Quote:
1. A tumultuous crowd; a mob.
2. The lowest or coarsest class of people. Often used with the
When I see "the rabble", I take it in the context of definition 2, which might or might not have been your intent. This is different than 'a rabbler' as dys might describe himself - one who is part of a tumultuous crowd. Whatever your intent, JL, that is how I took it and I stand by my opinion that referring to a poster as low class or coarse is arrogant.
