Zone1 Sociopolitical debate vs group think

[candycorn]

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

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

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?

Are you still pretending that Trump is the "common sense" candidate? The guy who promised that Covid cases would be down to zero and the virus would disappear "like a miracle"?

You called him the common sense prophet here:

The 2020 Election: Is Common Sense Making a Comeback?

Robert Curry raised an interesting question in this short essay this week. https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/is-common-sense-making-a-comeback/ He observed the glaring lack of common sense in the Democrat debates with Julian Castro advocating abortion rights for transgender women taking the...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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."

I pay attention to how often a poster uses the word "we" and in what context.

It is very revealing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes but the Hippies were not just rebels or contrarian. They completely dismissed the traditions and values of the previous generation and established their own language, terms, group think. They were the first generation to do so. It's probably best to discuss as a separate topic, but while the Hippies had little or no power, it is that group think that has infiltrated almost every aspect of our society that holds power or controls the public message. It has evolved into the most destructive group think that is used to control us now.

The hippie movement was all about people doing their own thing, not forcing everybody else to do theirs, however.

While some the ageing hippies have abandoned their roots and have turned authoritarian, most of the authoritarianism that you reference is the product of younger generations.

 

[Foxfyre]

They were counterculture.

And they had a profound effect on society and actually changed the mores of the entire country

They certainly were the doorway for a counter culture and harmful leftism to take over most of the institutions of the country though it would take decades for that to happen to the extent is is now.

 

[Foxfyre]

The hippie movement was all about people doing their own thing, not forcing everybody else to do theirs, however.

While some the ageing hippies have abandoned their roots and have turned authoritarian, most of the authoritarianism that you reference is the product of younger generations.

I am pretty sure I am on solid historical footing that their counter culture was the doorway for an authoritarian and harmful leftism to take over most of the country.

 

[Blues Man]

They certainly were the doorway for a counter culture and harmful leftism to take over most of the institutions of the country though it would take decades for that to happen to the extent is is now.

Lots of good things came out of the 60's counterculture movement too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lots of good things came out of the 60's counterculture movement too.

I'm sure many think so. As a historian, I look at the long range affect of current day thinking, action, policy. While the hippies certainly didn't intend a neo-Marxist takeover of American culture, the long range effect was just that.

That Hippy generation, once they got through their zone out, drop out phase, tended to go into occupations that affect culture, i.e. education, media, government. And there they mentored like minded people until those attained majority in those institutions. But by the time that majority was attained those being mentored were not permissive rebels but were hard core extremist leftist with authoritarian neo-Marxist ambitions.

The problem with neo-Marxism that tries to implement the best of Marxist thought while avoiding the worst of it generally looks more and more like old Marxism the more power it achieves.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am pretty sure I am on solid historical footing that their counter culture was the doorway for an authoritarian and harmful leftism to take over most of the country.

Turn on, Tune in and drop out is actually a libertarian/liberal perspective. They were anti-establishment.

Today's leftists ARE the establishment and they have completely abandoned liberalism as any sort of guiding principle.

What happened to the left in general is that multiculturalism gradually replaced liberalism beginning in The late seventies, and then morphed into identity politics. Since judging people by tribe is actually an extremely primitive way of looking at the world, there is no longer much of anything liberal about the left these days.

 

[Mindful]

ntion to how often a poster uses the word "we" and in what context.

It is very revealing.

Oh yes. That’s a popular one, used by trolls and stalkers, who make out they’ve got legions of supporters.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh yes. That’s a popular one, used by trolls and stalkers, who make out they’ve got legions of supporters.

And to assuage that feeling of insecurity that results from their need for nurturing and acceptance.

The thought of becoming an independent adult absolutely frightens them. They were overprotected as children and look to government to provide them what their mother used to provide.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm sure many think so. As a historian, I look at the long range affect of current day thinking, action, policy. While the hippies certainly didn't intend a neo-Marxist takeover of American culture, the long range effect was just that.

That Hippy generation, once they got through their zone out, drop out phase, tended to go into occupations that affect culture, i.e. education, media, government. And there they mentored like minded people until those attained majority in those institutions. But by the time that majority was attained those being mentored were not permissive rebels but were hard core extremist leftist with authoritarian neo-Marxist ambitions.

The problem with neo-Marxism that tries to implement the best of Marxist thought while avoiding the worst of it generally looks more and more like old Marxism the more power it achieves.

Marxist takeover? Really?

 

[Foxfyre]

Marxist takeover? Really?

Neo-Marxist takeover absolutely. I think it is increasingly crystal clear. Control government. Control big business. Control the media, education, entertainment, scientific institutions so that the message will be only what they allow. And destroy or render powerless anybody who presumes to get in their way. The purpose is to establish as close to a totalitarian government as they can so that they can create a Utopia that will never happen or even be attempted once they have total power.

To accomplish that they must indoctrinate the young beginning as early as possible, replace our history/culture/traditional mores and values with something else that they can control and make the people as needy and dependent as possible so they will be allowed more and more power.

What I am doing is stating what I believe from personal experience and observation evaluated according to verifiable facts, instinct, intuition, common sense, reason and logic.

Perhaps there are some who can intelligently dispute what I believe using reason, logic, verifiable facts etc.

The group think people will deny it not because they honestly don't think it's happening or because they are in a state of denial, but because they don't want to hear it from people they have chosen to dislike or disrespect and it wouldn't be politically correct among those they choose to admire.

 

[Blues Man]

Neo-Marxist takeover absolutely. I think it is increasingly crystal clear. Control government. Control big business. Control the media, education, entertainment, scientific institutions so that the message will be only what they allow. And destroy or render powerless anybody who presumes to get in their way. The purpose is to establish as close to a totalitarian government as they can so that they can create a Utopia that will never happen or even be attempted once they have total power.

To accomplish that they must indoctrinate the young beginning as early as possible, replace our history/culture/traditional mores and values with something else that they can control and make the people as needy and dependent as possible so they will be allowed more and more power.

What I am doing is stating what I believe from personal experience and observation evaluated according to verifiable facts, instinct, intuition, common sense, reason and logic.

Perhaps there are some who can intelligently dispute what I believe using reason, logic, verifiable facts etc.

The group think people will deny it not because they honestly don't think it's happening or because they are in a state of denial, but because they don't want to hear it from people they have chosen to dislike or disrespect and it wouldn't be politically correct among those they choose to admire.

Except it's big business that controls government and the press.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except it's big business that controls government and the press.

I don't think so. Sometime find a copy of this book. It could be a real eye opener.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think so. Sometime find a copy of this book. It could be a real eye opener.
View attachment 819054

Our government has been doing nothing but looking after the interests of big business. All our politicians have been bought off by some big money donor.

These same people own all the media in the country

 

[Foxfyre]

Our government has been doing nothing but looking after the interests of big business. All our politicians have been bought off by some big money donor.

These same people own all the media in the country

That is the standard belief among those who haven't looked or won't look deeper. Read that little book--it is a quick and easy read and a real page turner. Then get back to me. It is no way explains everything but it blows up a lot of the group think doctrines re big business.

 

[otto105]

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.

Our country is governed by consensus.

Our foundation as a country put checks and balances in to limit that consensus. But our history of voting participation proves for a long time white majority rule excluded many.

Your group think argument is just a cover for halting change and an expression of fear for a multicultural future.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our country is governed by consensus.

Your group think argument is just a cover for halting change and an expression of fear for a multicultural future.

Again since you seem to be unable to understand the conversation or the points made I'll just wish you a pleasant evening otto.

 

[otto105]

Again since you seem to be unable to understand the conversation or the points made I'll just wish you a pleasant evening otto.

Yeah, those points.

All from the white grevience side of the aisle.

I get you old gal.

You have a good night too it’s late where ever you are.

 

[Blues Man]

That is the standard belief among those who haven't looked or won't look deeper. Read that little book--it is a quick and easy read and a real page turner. Then get back to me. It is no way explains everything but it blows up a lot of the group think doctrines re big business.

What are this so called expert's credentials?