Zone1 Sociopolitical debate vs group think

[Foxfyre]

In some situations consensus is demanded, so it is why people have gotten together, to form a consensus on something

"When a person is excluded or disciplined (not sure what this implies: 'or worse'), if he/she disagrees..." - I have been outside of a consensus, and in those times any exclusion was usually foreseen. Almost a choice. I'm not sure about anyone being 'disciplined'

my previous text:

One example with disclaimer that this is not intended to be another thread on climate change:

Any scientist who questions the doctrine of AGW causing climate change and/or the concept that controlling human activity, behavior, choices, options will remedy that is automatically excluded from almost all scientific organizations, will not be allowed grant monies and, if publicly visible, will be painted as a right wing nut and climate denier by the media etc.

Many film stars have been removed from the "A list" or blacklisted when they expressed conservative or right wing views.

Conservative or right wing educators in most public schools and colleges or employees in certain occupations are made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable to the point they leave if they are even hired in the first place.

All of which is no different from a kind of "McCarthyism" during a time those in power were looking for communists and excluding/firing all even possibly associated with communists or communism. That was also a very destructive form of group think.

And that is what I mean by being excluded or disciplined. And yes, in such circumstances consensus is demanded which is highly destructive.

Science becomes something other than science when questions or challenges to concepts are not allowed.

Education becomes indoctrination when different points of view are not allowed to be included or even expressed.

Corporations or other organizations become ingrown and much less likely to make good choices when only one point of view is allowed in order to be acceptable.

When consensus is demanded, it should mean that in order for something to happen or move forward, everyone must arrive a point of agreement such as say a jury. It does not mean the participants cannot engage in lively debate, expression of many points of view and preferences, etc. It does not require a specific outcome.

Whenever a specific outcome is required you don't have consensus. You have dictatorship or totalitarianism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thinking more fundamentally into it, what would you say is your social system's primary foundation for moral code?

This question always goes ignored.

But I keep asking it whenever relevance presents itself, particularly whenever shared values, tradition and laws regulating conduct that supposedly encourage constructive behavior are invoked.

Ultimately the question becomes ''Based on what?"

That part always gets skipped over, yet it is the most fundamental in determining what those so-called shared values, traditions and laws actually mean, applicably speaking.

The principles and the fruit thereof are Indivisible in any case and therefore must be accepted and rejected as such. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece meal. There's your double edged sword...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I just chalk it up to infantile or rigid mentality actually. I long ago was not bothered by the insults and hateful logic of the trolls or group think though it is difficult to respect that. Some years ago CK and I tried to establish a better means to facilitate more intelligent discussion with the Structured Debate forum, but the mods hated it so it never really got off the ground.

But I hate to see the few really interesting people here depart because it has simply become so vacuous, uninteresting, and sometimes unfair. Even some mods do not distinguish between different approaches to a topic and just lump them all in together. I'm sure this is usually unintentional--usually but probably not always.

I may have to go back to some of the previous message boards that actually have real discussions though I don't have the sense of community there that I have with some here. Just pondering.

Structured Debate would incorporate civility and factual evidence, right?

The Board is as it is because many, many members want what they want in belief without being audited by factual evidence.

Why would the Mods oppose that if it was in its own forum?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The majority is always wrong. Always...

 

[Dante Reawakened]

One example with disclaimer that this is not intended to be another thread on climate change:

Any scientist who questions the doctrine of AGW causing climate change and/or the concept that controlling human activity, behavior, choices, options will remedy that is automatically excluded from almost all scientific organizations, will not be allowed grant monies and, if publicly visible, will be painted as a right wing nut and climate denier by the media etc.

Scientific experts on climate, not other sub fields -- how many highly regarded ones question any consensus? What fields are these scientists in? What type of grants would they be seeking -- grants to study climate?

I see this as if a scientist of some sort thing where a scientist of some sort comes out as a flat-earther, and whines 'I've been laughed out of places'

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Many film stars have been removed from the "A list" or blacklisted when they expressed conservative or right wing views.

I have a childhood friend that was a part of Friends of Abe. I would tease him, and he'd end up dmitting that when he spoke openly and honestly -- questioning some things, the group would turn on him.



It's a group of Hollywood people fighting amongst themselves, yet the right all of a sudden cares what Hollywood has to say?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Conservative or right wing educators in most public schools and colleges or employees in certain occupations are made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable to the point they leave if they are even hired in the first place.

This is patently false.

The data doesn't lie.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is reason number one why you shouldn't give socialists the controls. It's easy to steer a ship in that direction over time once you have them.

They'll steer the ship precisely in that direction every single time. And it only takes one pilot to navigate that course once the golden goose has been obtained. As it is, and unfortunately so, people collectively seem to be content (eager even) to be led these days. And that's what makes it so easy to do once you have the wheel and the intent.

I believe I've described the phenomenon a few times around here in the past. And much more thoroughly, if I recall correctly. It's an observable phenomenon.

For folks who are interested in more relevant, more meaningful discussion, those folks will almost always tend to move along elsewhere on the www over time, much the same as you mention considering yourself.

But that's the long-term goal of the standard anti-individual who prefers boards like these on the the www be a utility or vessel to encourage Americans to adopt a group mentality anyway. To weed people like you out. Now it'll never be admitted, of course. And they may very well smile at you the whole time. Probably will, actually. But it's true if you really pay attention or watch the compass, so to speak. That it's true is all that really matters in hind sight.

I have at times felt that my point of view was discriminated against here (and on some other forums) and my threads were merged with another or were intentionally buried in some obscure forum where it probably would not be seen and would die. But I also accept explanations that such wasn't the case and that I could be wrong even though I still felt that way.

I felt and still feel there is little understanding or tolerance for a different approach or concept applied to a particular topic that hopefully would encourage more thoughtful discussion and debate. Such should be allowed to be their own thread. But I also allow that I could be wrong about that.

Group think can take many different forms. There is nothing wrong with consensus that the new carpet for the church sanctuary should be a pleasant muted mosaic of indistinct colors. If everybody likes that concept, no problem. The problem would be if nobody was allowed a different opinion about that and would be insulted/criticized/excluded from the committee if he/she expressed that opinion.

Destructive group think allows no difference of opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a childhood friend that was a part of Friends of Abe. I would tease him, and he'd end up dmitting that when he spoke openly and honestly -- questioning some things, the group would turn on him.



It's a group of Hollywood people fighting amongst themselves, yet the right all of a sudden cares what Hollywood has to say?

I care when that group controls the content of the product I will buy a ticket for or procure the DVD or Bluray. Ever since the 'woke' took over Hollywood and replaced creativity, innovation, plots/characters with ability to help us learn, think, understand, feel with 'woke' indoctrination, movies have mostly sucked.

And because the entertainment industry is so popular with the vast majority of Americans, when those who want to promote one 'group think' message and allow no other content, it becomes just one more means of indoctrination.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I care when that group controls the content of the product I will buy a ticket for or procure the DVD or Bluray. Ever since the 'woke' took over Hollywood and replaced creativity, innovation, plots/characters with ability to help us learn, think, understand, feel with 'woke' indoctrination, movies have mostly sucked.

And because the entertainment industry is so popular with the vast majority of Americans, when those who want to promote one 'group think' message and allow no other content, it becomes just one more means of indoctrination.

Whether an actor, write etc is conservative or liberal or whatever, does not dictate the content.

Studios and financiers do that. They're in it to kmake $$$, not push an agenda. Pushing an agenda is what rightwing and leftwing groups do,

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I have at times felt that my point of view was discriminated against here (and on some other forums) and my threads were merged with another or were Gintentionally buried in some obscure forum where it probably would not be seen and would die. But I also accept explanations that such wasn't the case and that I could be wrong even though I still felt that way.

I felt and still feel there is little understanding or tolerance for a different approach or concept applied to a particular topic that hopefully would encourage more thoughtful discussion and debate. But I also allow that I could be wrong about that.

Group think can take many different forms. There is nothing wrong with consensus that the new carpet for the church sanctuary should be a pleasant muted mosaic of indistinct colors. If everybody likes that concept, no problem. The problem would be if nobody was allowed a different opinion about that and would be insulted/criticized/excluded from the committee if he/she expressed that opinion.

Destructive group think allows no difference of opinion.

A sex educator in Michigan refused to be shamed. Then came the backlash.​

Heather Alberda found her calling by speaking bluntly about sex in her conservative county. Her career was no match for the nation’s culture wars.​

see?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Destructive group think allows no difference of opinion.

Groupthink doesn't seek a consensus. It demands agreement and conformity. We see it frighteningly in MAGA. People admitting they think a candidate broke laws, but don't care -- in this one case. It creates a cognitive dissonance that allows terrible results

 

[forkup]

Could you clarify what you mean by this: "You identify "group think" as the problem. Yet doing a very cursory check of what you have posted doesn't show much in the way of distinguishing characteristic to any other other generic right-winger on this board."? Because I honestly don't know what your meaning is here.

And it would be helpful to know what you consider my 'fallacious arguments' or why you think I lack 'self awareness'.

It is going after the person instead of the content of what the person says that is one of the biggest detriments to honest debate or helpful discussion both in formal debate and here at USMB. As an old debate coach and judge, going ad hominem or attacking or even commenting on the opponent rather than his argument pretty much insured that the person would lose the debate.

But that particular phenomenon in my opinion is part of the 'group think' mentality, i.e. attack and discredit the member if you can't legitimately discredit the content of the post. And yes, there are some on the left and on the right who are guilty of that.

Sure. When you claim group think is a problem and I see. "Wokeness", "the deep state", "corrupt MSM", Hunter Biden" appear as your chosen subjects I'm not entirely sure how you aren't subject to group think.

The entertainment industry is just as infested with far left 'woke' nutcases as anything else is.

This is begging the question.

to be eligible to be nominated for an Oscar is that one of the leading actors has to be a person of color

Again begging the question.

But he had to protect Hunter to keep him in the money pipeline that they both probably benefitted from.

Begging the question.

"Shokin WASN'T investigating Burisma."

Show evidence.

Guess what? Dragonlady did by linking a contemporary account of the firing of Shokin. You, however did not respond when she gave you exactly what you asked for.

This is like I said just going by some recent posts. And I understand that it's very easy to use fallacies. I will even concede that especially that last point can have several completely good faith reasons. I've abandoned OP's myself. My point is simply this. If you want to have an honest exchange of ideas things like begging the question are poison. They're a widely used and effective debating technique as you probably well know. On the other hand they aren't by themselves valid points and offer nothing to any sort of resolution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Structured Debate would incorporate civility and factual evidence, right?

The Board is as it is because many, many members want what they want in belief without being audited by factual evidence.

Why would the Mods oppose that if it was in its own forum?

It took a lot of extra time and effort for the mods to read, understand and enforce the specific rules the OP placed on a particular debate, i.e. you must address the issue itself and cannot blame a person or political party for it. It made their life easier if members could not change the rules anywhere. I was disappointed of course, but accepted that. I also adhere to the principle of not making things harder than they have to be.

As for 'factual', that is in the eye of the beholder. No matter how credible and supported by evidence some of my comments are, there are those who are predictable to mark down that post with a 'funny' or 'disagree' or 'fake news.' Such people are not interested in facts but are simply trolling or essentially demanding that only their propaganda, however indefensible, be acceptable to them.

That is a strong characteristic of destructive group think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure. When you claim group think is a problem and I see. "Wokeness", "the deep state", "corrupt MSM", Hunter Biden" appear as your chosen subjects I'm not entirely sure how you aren't subject to group think.

This is begging the question.

Again begging the question.

Begging the question.

Guess what? Dragonlady did by linking a contemporary account of the firing of Shokin. You, however did not respond when she gave you exactly what you asked for.

This is like I said just going by some recent posts. And I understand that it's very easy to use fallacies. I will even concede that especially that last point can have several completely good faith reasons. I've abandoned OP's myself. My point is simply this. If you want to have an honest exchange of ideas things like begging the question are poison. They're a widely used and effective debating technique as you probably well know. On the other hand they aren't by themselves valid points and offer nothing to any sort of resolution.

That people agree on any given topic or that they use similar or identical terms to describe something is not 'group think.' Group think is mindless compliance with a particular doctrine or concept or statement of 'fact' or whatever that the person cannot defend when challenged to do so.

Which is why, in the case of the investigator Biden demanded be fired, I and others in a position to know still have our suspicions, I say there is likely insufficient evidence to convict Biden on that particular issue.

The 'group think' media simply recites what they are told by the government to say on that. And any who are doing serious investigation into it you probably will never see because Google and other 'woke' search engines bury such sources so deep that they are unfindable by most.

Oddly Google doesn't seem to mind us finding lots of sources who point that out.

Google reportedly manipulates search results to hide controversial subjects and favor big business

A new report in the Wall Street Journal highlights some major issues with Google's ubiquitous search engine, Google Search.

www.businessinsider.com

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

 

[Foxfyre]

Groupthink doesn't seek a consensus. It demands agreement and conformity. We see it frighteningly in MAGA. People admitting they think a candidate broke laws, but don't care -- in this one case. It creates a cognitive dissonance that allows terrible results

But you see, I see statements like yours here as an example of 'group think' from the left. It is a blanket statement that you cannot support with any evidence.

If I say I am not voting for a person's personality or private life but rather for the person who produced amazingly good results for America, I am accused of not caring about whether the person broke the law. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

At the same time I won't agree that somebody broke the law just because somebody with political motive and utilizing the politics of personal destruction say he broke the law or want him to have broken the law. And that is evenmoreso when it strongly appears the Democrat/deep state machine is engaged in malicious political persecution/prosecution for political reasons and those accusing him don't care whether it is malicious politically motivated prosecution.

I despise what Biden and/or his handlers are doing to this country aided and abetted by a radical leftwing Congress, media, etc. but I am very careful not to accuse him of something that I think we don't have evidence to prove. You won't, for example, ever see me posting 'pedo Joe' or some such. I am pretty sure of my ground before I accuse somebody.

Saying that something looks or smells bad is not the same thing as making a flat out accusation. In that I am quite different from some other MAGA persons who are angry and more confident of their beliefs and will say flat out that he did it while I wait for more evidence to surface. And those MAGAs will more often than not attack me if I disagree with their position on something or propose something that doesn't fit their narrative.

THAT is destructive group think whether it comes from the left or the right.

Yes, those who make unprovable claims about Biden or anybody else, no matter whether they are MAGA Patriots or otherwise conservative, are engaging in destructive group think and are in the wrong as well in my opinion as weakening the image of the MAGA movement overall.

And the left is just as wrong accusing Trump or others when all they have to go on is the narrative produced by group think.

 

[forkup]

That people agree on any given topic or that they use similar or identical terms to describe something is not 'group think.' Group think is mindless compliance with a particular doctrine or concept or statement of 'fact' or whatever that the person cannot defend when challenged to do so.

Which is why, in the case of the investigator Biden demanded be fired, I and others in a position to know still have our suspicions, I say there is likely insufficient evidence to convict Biden on that particular issue.

The 'group think' media simply recites what they are told by the government to say on that. And any who are doing serious investigation into it you probably will never see because Google and other 'woke' search engines bury such sources so deep that they are unfindable by most.

Oddly Google doesn't seem to mind us finding lots of sources who point that out.

Google reportedly manipulates search results to hide controversial subjects and favor big business

A new report in the Wall Street Journal highlights some major issues with Google's ubiquitous search engine, Google Search.

www.businessinsider.com

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

mindless compliance with a particular doctrine or concept or statement of 'fact' or whatever that the person cannot defend when challenged to do so.

I specified 3 statements of 'facts' as begging the question. Feel free to defend them as 'facts'.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is a factual statement.

Dante Reawakened wrote:​

"We see it frighteningly in MAGA. People admitting they think a candidate broke laws, but don't care -- in this one case. It creates a cognitive dissonance that allows terrible results."

MAGA does not care that Trump and his adherents planned and tried to overthrow the 2020 election.

 

[Foxfyre]

I specified 3 statements of 'facts' as begging the question. Feel free to defend them as 'facts'.

I responded as well as I know how. Sorry if it wasn't sufficient as you see it.

 

[forkup]

I responded as well as I know how. Sorry if it wasn't sufficient as you see it.

I see. Good thing you aren't subject to groupthink who can't defend statements of 'facts' when challenged.