CDZ Why all the angry signatures?

[Toronado3800]

I want honest answers, I'm not calling anyone names and I want real answers so I'm posting here.

My signature is a half sarcastic joke, I have my leanings but in some ways I'd rather seem moderate not a radical for the purpose of debates. Newbs don't know where I'm coming from.

Why do I see all the angry name calling signatures? My concern is readers would zone out or be concerned I was "one of them" if I had a radical signature. Are there intimidation points to be won?

 

[SYTFE]

There are a lot of very passive aggressive conservatives here.

 

[Compost]

You get to write your own signature, so it is a reflection of who you are and/or who you are presenting yourself to be. The angry signatures tend to come from angry posters. I suspect the answer to your question might be just that simple.

Related question. What about people with no signature? Are they hiding something? Do they have nothing to say? Are they unwilling to commit to an identity?

 

[ChrisL]

I don't use a signature. I find it a bit pompous.

 

[Compost]

Beyond the signature, information can be conveyed by one's avi picture and name.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Beyond the signature, information can be conveyed by one's avi picture and name.

Indeed it can, pilgim!

 

[HenryBHough]

I think of my oft-varying signatures as a literacy test for liberals.

 

[Fishlore]

I want honest answers, I'm not calling anyone names and I want real answers so I'm posting here.

My signature is a half sarcastic joke, I have my leanings but in some ways I'd rather seem moderate not a radical for the purpose of debates. Newbs don't know where I'm coming from.

Why do I see all the angry name calling signatures? My concern is readers would zone out or be concerned I was "one of them" if I had a radical signature. Are there intimidation points to be won?

One way to understand the ferocious style of Trump fans is to see them not as a political party or a movement but as a mob. The mob is a term that goes back well into the 18th century (the use of "mob" to describe organized crime is relatively recent) and because of the critical role that mobs played in both the American and French Revolutions, the origin and behavior of the mob has been extensively studied by historians and psychologists.

Gustave Le Bon, the father of modern mob psychology explains that " crowds existed in three stages: submergence, contagion, and suggestion. During submergence, the individuals in the crowd lose their sense of individual self and personal responsibility. This is quite heavily induced by the anonymity of the crowd. Contagion refers to the propensity for individuals in a crowd to unquestioningly follow the predominant ideas and emotions of the crowd. In Le Bon's view, this effect is capable of spreading between "submerged" individuals much like a disease. Suggestion refers to the period in which the ideas and emotions of the crowd are primarily drawn from a shared racial unconscious. This behavior comes from an archaic shared unconscious and is therefore uncivilized in nature. It is limited by the moral and cognitive abilities of the least capable members. Le Bon believed that crowds could be a powerful force only for destruction. Additionally, Le Bon and others have indicated that crowd members feel a lessened sense of legal culpability, due to the difficulty in prosecuting individual members of a mob.
Crowd psychology - Wikipedia

 

[jwoodie]

Le Bon believed that crowds could be a powerful force only for destruction.

And you assign his behavior to Conservatives? Do you have access to television?

 

[Toronado3800]

Le Bon believed that crowds could be a powerful force only for destruction.

And you assign his behavior to Conservatives? Do you have access to television?

It should be safe to say we can apply the behavior to both sides.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I want honest answers, I'm not calling anyone names and I want real answers so I'm posting here.

My signature is a half sarcastic joke, I have my leanings but in some ways I'd rather seem moderate not a radical for the purpose of debates. Newbs don't know where I'm coming from.

Why do I see all the angry name calling signatures? My concern is readers would zone out or be concerned I was "one of them" if I had a radical signature. Are there intimidation points to be won?

well I have mine because I am a grouchy and angry year of a little man...

can not nor will I answer for anyone else...

 

[ChrisL]

Some signatures are funny. I enjoy those sometimes, but some are definitely pompous. It's also funny when someone sports a signature that says something like "be nice to those" or "intelligence is . . . blah, blah, blah" and then that person is like the total opposite of what their signature says. Always get a kick out of those!

 

[Fishlore]

Le Bon believed that crowds could be a powerful force only for destruction.

And you assign his behavior to Conservatives? Do you have access to television?

It should be safe to say we can apply the behavior to both sides.

I assigned the behavior to the people cited in the OP. Nowhere did I state or imply that those were the only people whose political participation was in the form of mob behavior. I agree with you that the pattern of behavior is to be found across party lines, although it is hardly equally distributed. The snotty sarcasm of "Do you have access to television?" as a form of reply illustrates the issue nicely.

 

[jwoodie]

It should be safe to say we can apply the behavior to both sides.

It is safe to say that, for the past 50 years, destructive crowd behavior is almost the exclusive province of the Left in this country. (If one has access to television.)