Zone1 Sociopolitical debate vs group think

[DudleySmith]

There are a couple of serious 'debate' forums here; crickets took it over from lack of use. What little is there is pretty much the same as here, mostly troll threads from either Town Hall or DU or Che Lives or FreeRepublic parrots.

 

[otto105]

Well some people are capable of independent and critical thinking and can evaluate whether a source is credible.

Others dismiss it as partisan BS and illustrate yet another example of mindless group think.

Hilarious

 

[DudleySmith]

Well some people are capable of independent and critical thinking and can evaluate whether a source is credible.

Others dismiss it as partisan BS and illustrate yet another example of mindless group think.

The first rule of debates is people having to agree on the same facts and proceed from there. Never going to happen with propagandists and shills. If they aren't talking about the same facts they aren't even talking about the same thing.

 

[DudleySmith]

But most of the most interesting people to me have already left or rarely ever post anymore

Poor and/or moderation. If the rules enforcers are partisan morons, don't expect much effort to go into serious posting. Mods here have a long long history of troll socking and baiting. Too late to fix that now.

 

[candycorn]

The first rule of debates is people having to agree on the same facts and proceed from there. Never going to happen with propagandists and shills. If they aren't talking about the same facts they aren't even talking about the same thing.

Agree.

We actually still have people on this board who insist (on this board anyway--I don't think they really believe it) that there was massive voter fraud that has never been proven in 9 states that benefitted the Democrats---while at the same time in the same election the GOP picked up 14 seats in the US House of Reps (blue states emphasized). 4 of the seats were in CA, 2 in FL, 2 in IA, 1 in MI, one in MN, 1 in NJ, 1 in NM, 2 in NY, 1 ea in OK, SC, and UT.

How did they gain seats in Michigan? How did they end up with a majority of seats in Georgia? Furthermore how did the same Dominion and Smartmatic machines that were supposedly flipping votes allow the GOP to flip 4 seats in California and 2 seats in New York?

This is all fact based. That actually happened. Look it up.

2020 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But none of this matters to some folks. Its the biggest example of group psychosis there is. Examine the data--all of the data--and it becomes vivid very quickly that there was no sizable fraud in the 2020 election. All of the audits and re-counts have proven this. It would be fertile ground for Sociopolitical Debate--how did blue states with their gerrymandering end up with districts that flipped red? But nobody on the political right is interested in that debate. And that is sad because this is really good news for the GOP. Now why aren't they interested in it? Because some orange blob says that the election was illegitimate.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Well some people are capable of independent and critical thinking and can evaluate whether a source is credible.

Others dismiss it as partisan BS and illustrate yet another example of mindless group think.

so if people evaluate your source(s) and consider them partisan and not credible? Because I actually go to your sources.

 

[Foxfyre]

The first rule of debates is people having to agree on the same facts and proceed from there. Never going to happen with propagandists and shills. If they aren't talking about the same facts they aren't even talking about the same thing.

No. The first rule of debate is everybody understanding what the topic is, i.e. what is being argued/what question is to be answered, what statement is to be addressed.

They darn sure don't have to agree on the facts as the whole purpose of the debate is to argue two sides of the question or the statement and they will generally use different facts to do that.

 

[candycorn]

No. The first rule of debate is everybody understanding what the topic is, i.e. what is being argued/what question is to be answered, what statement is to be addressed.

They darn sure don't have to agree on the facts as the whole purpose of the debate is to argue two sides of the question or the statement and they will generally use different facts to do that.

So you could have an argument about someone with climate change who doesn't believe that there are seasons if you both were to agree on the topic being climate change?

The population of folks who take you seriously is a prime number. 1.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am reminded of the iconic "Fiddler on the Roof" which is a musical dramatization of the Edict of Expulsion in late 19th Century Russia. The representative of the czars had just informed the Jews living in what would now be the Ukrainian village of Anatevka that they had three days to sell their properties and leave the country. Impulsively one man angrily blurted out they must fight: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24.) Tevye, through whose life and commentary the story was told, wisely replied, "Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless."

Tevye wisely understood that they had no power and there would be nothing to be gained should they resist the order. Best to salvage what they could and go to other places who would receive them. History informs us that the vast majority of those expelled Jews went on to make good lives for themselves elsewhere in Europe, in Israel, in America.

So when is it wise to accept and acquiesce to tyranny versus standing and fighting? No easy pat answer there but bringing this back to the topic of this thread let's look at one specific cog in a much larger election process.

President Trump has been broadly criticized by Patriots for suggesting that we do as the Democrats do, i.e. ballot harvesting, drop boxes, etc. Many Patriots were appalled that we should do something we have so heavily criticized the Democrats for doing. And group think kicks in to reject any consideration of doing that.

But Trump was not suggesting that any of that was a good thing. He was engaging in critical thinking by wisely acknowledging that we have no power to change the policy prior to the 2024 election and we either go with and take advantage of the policy that exists--the corrupt policy THEY put into effect--or we lose.

We can debate whether that compromises moral ethics, but those thinking outside the box also consider how damaging and destructive to all it will be if we lose. Perhaps we should consider that the moral thing is to play the game by their rules for now?

In so many things critical thinking, i.e. honest debate, can help us get past the error and stagnation and tyranny etc. of group think.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The best I can describe it, having lived through it in SF and actually being in a band back then......It started as a protest against the Vietnam war and the 'battle cry' was 'peace and love.' Flowers in the hair and relaxed sex morays were also prevalent. IMO, the whole movement was an attempt to sort of create a new culture standing against war and aggression. The radical Marxists took advantage of that and turned it into a violent anti government/police movement. Most 'hippies' grew up and out of that and moved on to work and raise families. The real radicals, used their schooling to get government positions instead of real jobs and really never grew out of their hatred for 'the man.' Now they ARE 'the man' but think they are still revolutionaries.

Exactly.

Take the SDS for example. They predated the hippie movement by a wee bit, but they were originally just about opposing the Vietnam war in order to keep our boys from dying. They did not actually side with the Viet Kong.

Gradually, they were overtaken by the radicals who DID side with the Kong, though, and the movement eventually split into three factions, the most radical of which were the Weathermen.

You lived through it as I did. I was rubbing elbows with them.

What I often find is that people often misinterpret history when they haven't lived through it.

 

[Leo123]

Exactly.

Take the SDS for example. They predated the hippie movement by a wee bit, but they were originally just about opposing the Vietnam war in order to keep our boys from dying. They did not actually side with the Viet Kong.

Gradually, they were overtaken by the radicals who DID side with the Kong, though, and the movement eventually split into three factions, the most radical of which were the Weathermen.

You lived through it as I did. I was rubbing elbows with them.

What I often find is that people often misinterpret history when they haven't lived through it.

Yep. I was into the music (being a musician) and seeing bands at the Filmore, etc. The hippies were pretty cool at at that time but a bit too bohemian for me to be a full fledged hippie. I likened them to the 'Beatniks' of the 50's and the whole 'North Beach' SF scene. Everyone I knew was against the Vietnam war but did not hate the troops. A lot of us actually got drafted and became those troops. Hatred for the soldiers came later with the radicals and Jane ******* Fonda. It was really a travesty that soldiers, who didn't even want to go to Vietnam in the first place, did their duty and got spat upon when returning. The SDS were Marxists and that's how they roll and still do today. They are nasty *****.

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly.

Take the SDS for example. They predated the hippie movement by a wee bit, but they were originally just about opposing the Vietnam war in order to keep our boys from dying. They did not actually side with the Viet Kong.

Gradually, they were overtaken by the radicals who DID side with the Kong, though, and the movement eventually split into three factions, the most radical of which were the Weathermen.

You lived through it as I did. I was rubbing elbows with them.

What I often find is that people often misinterpret history when they haven't lived through it.

Which is what I was thinking about when I started this thread.

Too much of our American politics now is group think with nothing undergirding it but partisanship, indoctrination, prejudices, lack of comprehensive education. When people are not intellectually challenged and critical thinking is not encouraged, they tend to become mentally lazy or complacent. They are not curious or interested in the actual facts or correct interpretation much less history. It's so much easier to to accept and repeat what they are told to think, believe, like or dislike and the positions they are expected to take.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Which is what I was thinking about when I started this thread.

Too much of our American politics now is group think with nothing undergirding it but partisanship, indoctrination, prejudices, lack of comprehensive education. When people are not intellectually challenged and critical thinking is not encouraged, they tend to become mentally lazy or complacent. They are not curious or interested in the actual facts or correct interpretation much less history. It's so much easier to to accept and repeat what they are told to think, believe, like or dislike and the positions they are expected to take.

I have always attributed much of that to our two party system. It encourages people to think in binary, and that binary is becoming more Manichaean by the day.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have always attributed much of that to our two party system. It encourages people to think in binary, and that binary is becoming more Manichaean by the day.

I think we're close to the same page.

Old style partisanship, i.e. Democrats vs Republicans was not a problem. The Republicans promoted individual initiative, entrepreneurship, encouraged the cream to rise to the top which gave them the reputation of being for big business but it wasn't that at all. It was simply the recognition that the more business prospered, so would the people. There is no reason to even have businesses if it is not to sell products and service to people who can afford to buy them.

At least from FDR on, the Democrats were more into homogenous society with government driving the process with more and more laws, regulations, mandates. There were exceptions. Nixon stuck us with the EPA for instance.

But all in all the America I grew up in was pretty unified in its values, customs, traditions, sense of right and wrong. Democrats and Republicans might heatedly argue process and policy, but in the end would shake hands and go have coffee together, attended Lions Club or Elks or VFW together, attended high school concerts and sporting events and Little League together and were neighbors helping neighbors.

I think there were several factors that began polarization of Americans sometime during the 1960's and 1970's and though it was barely perceptible then it has steadily increased over the decades until left and right barely speak to each other, much less are willing to work together.

It might have started with the JFK assassination, certainly the Hippie Movement and its resulting factions and Vietnam were large factors. LBJ's Great Society initiatives created some new militancy that we hadn't seen much of before.

There wasn't any one specific thing we could put our finger on but I think there was a deep state forming through all that. And it drives most of it now.

 

[Dante]

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

thank ty
DR

It's later...

 

[Dante]

POSTED: Aug 22, 2023

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...

Group think is dangerous. I experienced it in my employment before retiring. Many fresh college grads were given positions of leadership that they were woefully unprepared for. The place began to be run by "consensus" instead logic and reality. Thankfully the owners saw what was happening and more business-friendly methods were returned.

Years ago Jared Lanier, wrote an article discussing why open source software groups never make the breakthroughs that places like APPLE would make.

Having a smaller set of goals, with resources targeted towards achieving those goals... Leadership that ruled and guided.

How Consensus works in many situations is misunderstood. The cure is often far more deadly than any dis-ease it is given responsibility to address.

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.

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

again, It's later...


As I wrote, the devil is in the details," that when a person claims to be "excluded or disciplined or worse if he/she disagrees" the claim demands to be taken with an open view, a view that is open to skepticism and critical thinking.

We often see people who thrive on being victims, and when looked at closely we see a neurosis that discolors and warps what others would call reality.

Reminds me of a weird woman who once joined an open, public group that I was a part of. Right off teh bat I saw her as trying to control things with her first comment about certain terms, being they 'pronouns' or whatever. After seeing the moderators allowing her to be .. I left the group.

Later, seeing a few people from that group I'd ask about it .. the group slowly dissolved and was closed.

That woman was a neurotic who I saw as one right off the bat. Others wanted to be a part of a consensus that everybody's words and actions were to be treated equal no matter what. I vehemently disagreed and took my stand.