Public Opinion As A Weapon

[koan]

As was rightly pointed out in another thread, it is distracting to focus a discussion around comments by members who may no longer speak for themselves. Because I am intrigued by the subtopic that caused this thread to be revived I'm reposting my comment from there to here.

To simplify the discussion, I think it would be easiest add to "knee jerk reactions for the sake of rallying to a righteous cause with disregard to the facts of a situation or of the harm that can be done by acting on one sided information" that the weapon of choice is character assassination, otherwise known as slander.

Historically, defamation of character was punishable by death.[ The Law of the Twelve Tables (Lex Duodecim Tabularum, more informally simply Duodecim Tabulae)] If you think about it, slander is the most ancient weapon. All a person can really lay claim to in this world is themselves. Reputation is the most vital asset a person possesses. I know many women, the sex which seems to dwell more intensely in the world of character assessment, who spend a lot of time deciding where people should be placed in their personal hierarchy. They then go about promoting their hierarchy to other people by use of the telephone tree and whatever other means of information dispersal they can find. Some of these perpetrators should be quite thankful they don’t live in old Rome under the Twelve Tables.

Public opinion is much more powerful a weapon than the public who wield it seem to understand. I don’t blame people for breaking down into tears when they believe their character is under attack. From personal experience finding out one’s character is being attacked can be likened to having perceptions dulled by an oceanic roar in one’s ears as the mind struggles with panic. The value of one’s reputation can easily be seen in places such as this forum where many members find themselves obsessed with defending themselves until they finally realize that their online reputation can be abandoned if all else fails. Unlike “real life”.

In the case of the other thread we see how disposable personalities can affect the real lives of people who's identities are not discardable.

Let the other thread remain just as an example of a situation and realize that many others could be found within this forum but also in endless other places.

[minks]

Public opinion is much more powerful a weapon than the public who wield it seem to understand. I don’t blame people for breaking down into tears when they believe their character is under attack. From personal experience finding out one’s character is being attacked can be likened to having perceptions dulled by an oceanic roar in one’s ears as the mind struggles with panic. The value of one’s reputation can easily be seen in places such as this forum where many members find themselves obsessed with defending themselves until they finally realize that their online reputation can be abandoned if all else fails. Unlike “real life”.

Certainly has become an easy weapon from infront of a computer screen.

[abbey]

Did someone leave the door open it's cold in here.

[koan]

Political scientists usually define power as "the ability to influence the behaviour of others" with or without resistance. C. Fred Alford argues in his book Group Psychology and Political Theory "that the group”not the individual”is the most fundamental reality in society and that political theory has overlooked the insights of group psychology and leadership."

It would be hard to argue against the idea that people are drawn to power and I think reasonable to assume that the acquisition of power (be it through money or public support) is a popular quest. Having a group of followers can make for a powerful person. So who are the leaders and who are the followers? What separates one from the other? Do people always know they are followers when they are being manipulated?

[orangesox1]

koan wrote: As was rightly pointed out in another thread, it is distracting to focus a discussion around comments by members who may no longer speak for themselves. Because I am intrigued by the subtopic that caused this thread to be revived I'm reposting my comment from there to here.



To simplify the discussion, I think it would be easiest add to "knee jerk reactions for the sake of rallying to a righteous cause with disregard to the facts of a situation or of the harm that can be done by acting on one sided information" that the weapon of choice is character assassination, otherwise known as slander.



Historically, defamation of character was punishable by death.[ The Law of the Twelve Tables (Lex Duodecim Tabularum, more informally simply Duodecim Tabulae)] If you think about it, slander is the most ancient weapon. All a person can really lay claim to in this world is themselves. Reputation is the most vital asset a person possesses. I know many women, the sex which seems to dwell more intensely in the world of character assessment, who spend a lot of time deciding where people should be placed in their personal hierarchy. They then go about promoting their hierarchy to other people by use of the telephone tree and whatever other means of information dispersal they can find. Some of these perpetrators should be quite thankful they don’t live in old Rome under the Twelve Tables.



Public opinion is much more powerful a weapon than the public who wield it seem to understand. I don’t blame people for breaking down into tears when they believe their character is under attack. From personal experience finding out one’s character is being attacked can be likened to having perceptions dulled by an oceanic roar in one’s ears as the mind struggles with panic. The value of one’s reputation can easily be seen in places such as this forum where many members find themselves obsessed with defending themselves until they finally realize that their online reputation can be abandoned if all else fails. Unlike “real life”.



In the case of the other thread we see how disposable personalities can affect the real lives of people who's identities are not discardable.



Let the other thread remain just as an example of a situation and realize that many others could be found within this forum but also in endless other places.




I thought that was well said and true:-2

[koan]

I think there is also a fear factor involved in the choice to bond with a group. (Call me an Ernest Becker fan) When someone is strucken down in character it creates a desire to avoid the same fate oneself. This can lead to bonding with a group perceived to be able to protect one from outside attacks. The safety in numbers theory. If, indeed, there is fear involved in the desire to bond then it makes sense that people often make a decision to follow the leader in too hasty a manner.

[Accountable]

koan wrote: Political scientists usually define power as "the ability to influence the behaviour of others" with or without resistance. C. Fred Alford argues in his book Group Psychology and Political Theory "that the group”not the individual”is the most fundamental reality in society and that political theory has overlooked the insights of group psychology and leadership."



It would be hard to argue against the idea that people are drawn to power and I think reasonable to assume that the acquisition of power (be it through money or public support) is a popular quest. Having a group of followers can make for a powerful person. So who are the leaders and who are the followers? What separates one from the other? Do people always know they are followers when they are being manipulated?I'm a leader as well as a follower. For me, I wag it as probably 70/30. It delights me when others follow me with open eyes and minds. It dismays me when I see closed eyes and minds, regardless of whether the person follows me or not.



Manipulation ticks me off. Group-think is one of the most amazing phenomina I've ever witnessed. People get caught up in the moment and act in ways 180 degrees contrary to the way they normally would. For someone to purposely take advantage of it, even to cause and manipulate it for their own selfish ends, is disgusting.

[koan]

That's a good word to bring into the conversation.

Groupthink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they percieve to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.


The phrase often elicits outraged response as most people don't like the implication that they are being irrational. Though everyone will deny partaking in groupthink it is, nevertheless, a defined phenomenon so one can assume that it happens.

[koan]

Re Pinky

The point of starting this thread was to leave LC's specific instance behind and expand the topic.

Re SnoozeControl

There are some people who are infinitely capable of boredom. I've never understood it myself.

[spot]

I would empathize with anyone who felt they'd been mobbed on an Internet forum. There have been occasions here when I've brought topics for discussion and felt the back-channel heads-ups reverberate invisibly around the thread, as though the number of outraged shrieks of virtue improved the rationale behind any valid criticism involved. In terms of it happening to anyone else here, I'd very much like to see people allow the practice to stop. It occurs to me that I've now and then asked "have you been following" this or that thread. I wonder how close that is to "if you're my friend you'll go in there and be outraged".

Accountable's "It dismays me when I see closed eyes and minds" touches on the subject, but supporting an established position is quite reasonable. Have I a closed mind when I regard the weight of evidence as strongly supporting a given conclusion? I don't think so. I do think I could happily extract nuggets of truth from two sides of an argument and see how large a pile could be made of interpretations that all sides could endorse, so long as they deliberately avoided adding or subtracting for partisan reasons.

[buttercup]

excuse me all for not going over to the other thread, i dont feel the need, i just want to add that it upsets me seeing forum garden characters attacked, it happens here a lot, if they dont get you in 1 thread they will start another, it reminds me of a witch hunt

as for the do you wanna be in my gang, pathetic

im sorry anastrophe & tombstone if this response just adds fuel to the fire but it seems to me that if the majority of members do not point this out then the people concerned will continue to do it

[Accountable]

spot wrote: [...]

Accountable's "It dismays me when I see closed eyes and minds" touches on the subject, but supporting an established position is quite reasonable. Have I a closed mind when I regard the weight of evidence as strongly supporting a given conclusion? I don't think so. I do think I could happily extract nuggets of truth from two sides of an argument and see how large a pile could be made of interpretations that all sides could endorse, so long as they deliberately avoided adding or subtracting for partisan reasons.
I was speaking generally. I didn't read most of the thread that this thread came from, and didn't mean to imply anything about either side of that argument.

[koan]

Just to refocus; this thread is intended to be about leaders and followers as a phenomenon. It is not meant to be a discussion about ForumGarden in particular.

[buttercup]

koan wrote: Just to refocus; this thread is intended to be about leaders and followers as a phenomenon. It is not meant to be a discussion about ForumGarden in particular.


ah well now thats clarified - im thinking gary glitter, followed, thought of as a god, sung im the leader, do you wanna be in my gang

[spot]

Accountable wrote: I was speaking generally. I didn't read most of the thread that this thread came from, and didn't mean to imply anything about either side of that argument.and indeed the passage you quoted is a non-specific comment which, while it applies within ForumGarden, applies as much outside of it as well. Though I rarely have reason to argue so much anywhere else, it must be said.

[koan]

There are many examples of toxic leaders that can be found. Some debatable, depending on who you talk to.

Jim Jones

L Ron Hubbard

GW Bush

...

[spot]

Hey - I liked Jim Jones.

[koan]

This is the type of concern I'm getting at:



The Allure of Toxic Leaders:

Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt

Politicians”and How We Can Survive Them

By Jean Lipman-Blumen (New York: Oxford UP 2005)

Most of the time we assume that leaders lead and followers follow. Lipman-Blumen coined the phrase “toxic leadership” to designate [an] extremely bad sort of leader. Here she is not talking about incompetence, lack of foresight, or run-of-the-mill mismanagement. She is talking about leaders as predatory sociopaths. Bad folks, to be sure. Yet even people who see clearly through the fog of their fear and propaganda will continue to give loyal support for such leaders. Lipman-Blumen thus takes us to a different level of analysis altogether. What fascinates her is not that the people follow leaders, or even that leaders follow the people. What fascinates her is that people will continue to follow leaders, remain loyal to leaders, and vigorously resist change and challenges to leaders who have clearly violated the leader/follower relationship and abjectly abused their power as leaders to the direct detriment of the people they are leading. When we continue not only to tolerate leaders such as this, but to remain loyal followers (the book is full of examples of just this phenomenon), and when such people fascinate us through the media images they project, and we find them positively alluring, Lipman-Blumen suggests there is something of a deeply psychological nature going on and this is the place where her remarkably penetrating investigation takes off, in the central question of the book: What are the forces that propel followers, again and again, to accept, often favor, and sometimes create, toxic leaders?

(condensed from this page)

[koan]

spot wrote: Hey - I liked Jim Jones.


So do others. He even has his own conspiracy theory:

From wikipedia

Various conspiracy theories exist that offer alternative explanations as to what actually happened at Jonestown. One popular theory suggests that Jones himself was a CIA agent and that Jonestown was a mind control experiment gone wrong. Drugs found at the premises, such as Quaaludes, Valium, morphine, Demerol, and chloral hydrate, have been offered as evidence for this theory, as well as the late revelation that many of the supposed suicide victims were actually killed by gunfire and lethal injection.