Zone1 Sociopolitical debate vs group think

[Foxfyre]

I liked the Bull Ring. But I remember people being terribly confused on how it worked, and confusing a 'Call out' for the thread meant to highlight a battle of opinions.

It was intended to be a structured debate but too few understood the concept I think.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Consensus is fine and to be sought but if it is to be valuable, ALL those consenting must have access to all pertinent information, all different ways of looking at the problem, all possible solutions to solve the problem before consensus is achieved.

When consensus is demanded or a person is excluded or disciplined or worse if he/she disagrees, consensus can be one of the most dangerous forms of group think.

I agree with the bolded text. Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it.

But I've been a part of Occupy and other groups where consensus and other group framework ruled. I played by the rules, knowing I would be the odd man out more often than not. But I went in knowing what to expect. I've also been unfairly ostracized and attacked by control freaks who are attracted to consensus groups.

and groupthink? Some of my most harshest critics and opponents have been on the left, and this is with me being a Liberal.. Not a libertarian or bs 'classic' liberal, but being a true 1970s liberal -- Kennedy camp vs Jimmy Carter.

I see consensus often as a cover for bullying. In the past I've seen it here far too often. I learned long ago (as a youngster) to battle bullies and allow insults and other shit to flow off of my back like water off a duck's.

I originally came here and to a few other forums/messageboards as a champion of the bullied. I bullied the bullies and looking back, I would do it again. The consensus was often that I was not a team player.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It was intended to be a structured debate but too few understood the concept I think.

I will admit I sometimes struggled with moderators on that concept at the time. But we all agree to play by the rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with the bolded text. Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it.

But I've been a part of Occupy and other groups where consensus and other group framework ruled. I played by the rules, knowing I would be the odd man out more often than not. But I went in knowing what to expect. I've also been unfairly ostracized and attacked by control freaks who are attracted to consensus groups.

and groupthink? Some of my most harshest critics and opponents have been on the left, and this is with me being a Liberal.. Not a libertarian or bs 'classic' liberal, but being a true 1970s liberal -- Kennedy camp vs Jimmy Carter.

I see consensus often as a cover for bullying. In the past I've seen it here far too often. I learned long ago (as a youngster) to battle bullies and allow insults and other shit to flow off of my back like water off a duck's.

I originally came here and to a few other forums/messageboards as a champion of the bullied. I bullied the bullies and looking back, I would do it again. The consensus was often that I was not a team player.

I'm not sure what you mean by ". . .Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it. . .". Could you expound on that?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I'm not sure what you mean by ". . .Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it. . .". Could you expound on that?

it'll have to be later. I'll make a note to come back here

thank ty
DR

 

[occupied]

And that is certainly your right.

But most of the most interesting people to me have already left or rarely ever post anymore. And I hate that. I would like to reverse that trend.

I used to put a lot of effort into this pastime. I once composed maybe fifty dirty limericks just to troll one guy. Frankly the jerks are not worth it to me anymore. I shifted my focus to obtaining greater wisdom and understanding of the folly of men.

 

[Foxfyre]

it'll have to be later. I'll make a note to come back here

thank ty
DR

Okay. Geez another person who doesn't live here 24/7 LOL. Seriously I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I used to put a lot of effort into this pastime. I once composed maybe fifty dirty limericks just to troll one guy. Frankly the jerks are not worth it to me anymore. I shifted my focus to obtaining greater wisdom and understanding of the folly of men.

Good for you. I wish there was more of that interest here at USMB

 

[Natural Citizen]

The simplest definition for group think is: "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

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.

 

[forkup]

I could be wrong but in my opinion it seems that fewer and fewer serious and/or independent critical thinkers are posting at USMB these days, especially in the more popular sociopolitical forums. That renders the board unappealing to potential new members who are interesting in actually discussing topics as well as discouraging/disaffecting many of the old timers.

I blame group think which seems to be the political norm these days regardless of political party.

The simplest definition for group think is: "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

group think definition - Bing

Check out what I just created on Bing Image Creator

www.bing.com

And, again in my opinion, an expanded use of group is using insulting or smart aleck memes, platitudes, quotations taken out of context, assigned phrases/terms/talking points in lieu of serious and accurate facts, logic, reason. The methodology of delivery is mostly ad hominem, personal insults, phrases taken out of context or assigning words/thoughts to people that they never said or thought.

That is NOT debate which constitutes the following:
--courtesy/respect for your opponent
--arguing/explaining with real facts and evidence rather than assigned platitudes that are actually meaningless or just insulting.
--allowing the other person the right to their own perspective/opinion without feeling they must be pronounced mental or ideological idiots for thinking as they do.

A Beginners Guide to Debate Ethics and Etiquette

Treat your opponent with respect. Aside from that, what basic rules (do’s and don’ts) apply? This post applies to TP and LD specific rounds – but also to any debate style or format. Here is …

www.ethosdebate.com

Some things can just be discussed for the purpose of learning or teaching or exploring options or just because they are interesting/entertaining to the participants. Some things can be argued as to why one point of view is more defensible than another.

But just preaching to the choir, while it can be affirming to the participants, should not be confused with actual debate that seeks to defend a particular point of view.

I bring this up as yet another long time member/friend on this board is no longer participating due to the lack of interesting or helpful discussion/debate as well as the difficulty of establishing such discussion/debate due to a few board policies and the predictable group think that seeks to derail or bury such discussion/debate.

Is anybody else interested in this topic or care?

I would like to give my 2 cents on this.

Having an actual debate is kind of my reason being here. It's also why I post less and less.

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.

When I check the content I notice several fallacious arguments to support your position.

The way I see it in order to have an actual debate it's important to debate fairly. It's precisely that lack that makes debating on here almost impossible.

I don't doubt your earnestness, but when you try to advocate an exchange of ideas it would be helpful to actually couple that with a sense of self-awareness.

However in the spirit of the OP and in furthering of it's goal I will be glad to debate you on any topic of your choosing, in the hopes of finding common ground.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Common ground is group think.

Individual librty's last stand is fully dependent upon maintaining a solid line dividing the cause of its usurper from the cause of its defender.

There is no in-between...

 

[Blues Man]

Our societal system encourages groupthink.

No one is ever encouraged to be an iconoclast.

 

[Natural Citizen]

''Unity'' is a tyrant's greatest asset.

Historically speaking, in almost every instance that the term is invoked, tyranny follows.

For freedom to survive, for the very concept of individualism itself to survive, division is necessary.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Our societal system encourages groupthink.

Who is that? Our, I mean. Who is our?

I may have further questions regarding the framework of this ''system'' of yours. Is there a framework to placate arbitrary group claims? If so, then, what is it? Who decides ''need?" Do your/their "pronouns" carry any weight in this so-called ''social system?'' Just random first thoughts there. Thinking more fundamentally into it, what would you say is your social system's primary foundation for moral code?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heh heh. That reminds me of the time I went to battle with the school board over ''investigative math''

Ended up just taking the kid out of public school. Opting out, so to speak...

 

[Blues Man]

Who is that? Our, I mean. Who is our?

I may have further questions regarding the framework of this ''system'' of yours. Is there a framework to placate arbitrary group claims? If so, then, what is it? Who decides ''need?" Do your/their "pronouns" carry any weight in this so-called ''social system?'' Just random first thoughts there. Thinking more fundamentally into it, what would you say is your social system's primary foundation for moral code?

Gee since this is the US Message board I didn't think I needed to spell out which societal structure I was talking about.

And FYI the American society is your society if you live in America.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Gee since this is the US Message board I didn't think I needed to spell out which societal structure I was talking about.

See, that is what I'm talking about in one sense.

What does it even mean that this is US Message Board?

Take, for instance, one of the biggest arguments among ''the group'' over the last year has been that whole use of the term groomer and what it means.

All one has to do is look to the past. It's cached.

That said, let us peek over at the ole compass and see which direction the ship was ultimately steered along the old scenic Hegelian Sea, just as an example.

Did you know that the way it ended up was that a rule was established to premise mauderation of the use of the language on a definition of the term that was provided by a UK source with the agenda attached to it, rather than premising the language on that of the way that the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) does?

So...yeah...what does ''This is US Message Board'' even mean in your retort?

Of course, the implementation itself was obviously a product of ''group think," though selectively limited to a very, very small group of clerical staff.

But nobody ever said who provided the foreign source to ''the group'' to ''think'' about implementing in the first place. Just like nobody ever says who decides so-called ''need'' whenever such group claims are invoked.

The person who did, whoever it is, is the one navigating the ship into failure. That's the one you wanna make walk the plank. Logistically speaking anyway.

And FYI the American society is your society if you live in America.

Yeah, no, huh uh. I'm afraid there's a bit more to the terms of controversy than that, my friend.

Ah well. Whatever. Got stuff to do...

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to give my 2 cents on this.

Having an actual debate is kind of my reason being here. It's also why I post less and less.

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.

When I check the content I notice several fallacious arguments to support your position.

The way I see it in order to have an actual debate it's important to debate fairly. It's precisely that lack that makes debating on here almost impossible.

I don't doubt your earnestness, but when you try to advocate an exchange of ideas it would be helpful to actually couple that with a sense of self-awareness.

However in the spirit of the OP and in furthering of it's goal I will be glad to debate you on any topic of your choosing, in the hopes of finding common ground.

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.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I'm not sure what you mean by ". . .Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it. . .". Could you expound on that?

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:

I agree with the bolded text. Where I'd disagree is in the devilish details of a complaint of a person that claims to have been unfairly 'disciplined or worse' as you put it.

But I've been a part of Occupy and other groups where consensus and other group framework ruled. I played by the rules, knowing I would be the odd man out more often than not. But I went in knowing what to expect. I've also been unfairly ostracized and attacked by control freaks who are attracted to consensus groups.

and groupthink? Some of my most harshest critics and opponents have been on the left, and this is with me being a Liberal.. Not a libertarian or bs 'classic' liberal, but being a true 1970s liberal -- Kennedy camp vs Jimmy Carter.

I see consensus often as a cover for bullying. In the past I've seen it here far too often. I learned long ago (as a youngster) to battle bullies and allow insults and other shit to flow off of my back like water off a duck's.

I originally came here and to a few other forums/messageboards as a champion of the bullied. I bullied the bullies and looking back, I would do it again. The consensus was often that I was not a team player.

 

[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. 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.

Our societal system encourages groupthink.

No one is ever encouraged to be an iconoclast.

There is a two edged sword here I think. On one hand, shared values, traditions, laws regulating conduct that encourage constructive behavior and thinking can be very good for society, strengthens it, promotes cooperation, less crime, better choices, more prosperity. This is not 'group think' so much as it is social contract that allows people to live together in harmony and cooperation.

On the other hand, rejection of those shared values, traditions, heritage as we saw with the Hippie generation erodes society, weakens it, promotes poorer choices and inevitably produces more crime, declining communities, reduced quality of life.

The old maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" does seem to be better for a society that actually works to the benefit of most rather than the iconoclastic mentality that in itself can sometimes be group think.