7 ms·

Herd Mentality

67 points by tomhoward 11y ago

rcsorensen 11y ago
Site appears down. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fautiYJ:quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd-mentality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fa...
- mkaroumi 11y ago
  Works for me...
  - tomhoward 11y ago
    Yeah looks like it's back now.
blfr 11y ago
This surely sums up the unambitious and self-seeking aims of those who make it their business to offend No, it doesn't. There's just one Milo Yiannopoulos while there are thousands upon thousands of purposely anonymous channers making memes and cracking jokes. I don't know how to say it without sounding negative but this is an uninsightful article based on little more than outcast mood affiliation.
- madez 11y ago
  I found the article insightful because it puts in words what I also felt sometimes. The tone of your comment reminds of it.
- rvikmanis 11y ago
  I don't think this article was meant to be particularily insightful on its own. Its purpose might be to bootstrap the insight machinery, which it accomplished, evidently.
bootload 11y ago
"At its worst, it gives us mindless thuggery, the kind of collective violence exemplified and explored in Golding’s Lord of the Flies." There's a reason kids are made to read/watch this book in school. The author was an English Master at Bishops [0] while he wrote this book. That's why it rings true. First hand knowledge of the pecking order and the herd in action. " The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe." Excommunication is dangerous because it can result in death. [0] UK, COE Grammer, Salisbury, Wiltshire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Notable_staff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Not...
orthoganol 11y ago
I have trouble endorsing positions like this just at the level of ethics. Refusing to work with others because of 'disagreements,' even those as similar as her fellow writers, is a good way to never have an impact on the world and change it for the better. I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish something great. What does that say about your strength of person that you find it threatening, or at the minimum, a 'big deal,' to associate with those you disagree with?
- Nutmog 11y ago
  I think she meant the group kicked her out because the other members were unable to work with someone who openly disagreed with them.
- bootload 11y ago
  "I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish something great." Grey man. Say nothing, don't make ripples and don't be noticed. Works well when SHTF and possibly when nothing of any consequence is happening. There is one aspect I don't like with this approach: By sitting back, not being noticed you loose the chance to lead. In LOTF I can think of one person who tried this approach, Simon. When he voiced his opinion on the snake thingy, noting it was in fact a dead airman, he was ignored. By taking the grey man approach you fail to take the chance and opportunity to lead, letting others dictate your situation.
edent 11y ago
There is a nasty nest of people who seem to relish in the pain and suffering that they cause. It is not an intellectually stimulating activity - it doesn't further any particular ideological cause, and I find it extremely troubling. Last night a friend of mine was set upon by a group of (self-declared) Libertarians for having the temerity to tweet about being disabled. I can't quite get into the mindset of the people who harass others online. Is it juvenile lashing out? The uncontrolled rage of the impotent? Or people who get a sadistic thrill from detached torture?
- netcan 11y ago
  I'm not sure how to classify it adequately. It may be that classification is inevitably oversimplifying. But, I do think that it's a close relative of conservatism that's found in almost every culture and can often get very extreme. Strict codes of conduct, dress, speech and such are a consequence of people instinctively creating and policing conformity. That can be thinking and voicing a dissident opinion about religion or politics, dressing outlandishly, speaking improperly or any other element of culture that's cohesive. It isn't a coincidence that in 18th century Japan and 18th century Morocco, people wore different hats. That conformity in hats happened as people themselves conformed to local hat culture and pressured those around them to conform. I think you're right to call it juvenile. Juveniles seem especially vigilant about conforming and policing conformity. A 14 year old is more likely to berate a nonconforming classmate than a 40 year old. Being online and anonymous tears down some of the barriers to both taking offence and offering it. But, I think that the instinct to find a core identity and violently defending it is, unfortunately, innate.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  I understand this question is examined in Jon Ronson's recent book So You've Been Publicly Shamed[1] I haven't read it but I've heard him discussing it on The Nerdist[2] and The Joe Rogan Experience[3] podcasts, both of which were very entertaining and insightful. Though I never stooped to the level of harassing and shaming people, I did go through an angry white male libertarian stage, and having been through that I think the underlying motive for the asshole behaviour is something to do with entitlement and resentment. I.e., "I deserve better than this (more money/status/respect/sex etc), if the world's not gonna give me what I deserve, then at least I can make other people as miserable as I am". [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham... [2] http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/ http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/ [3] http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1 http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1
golergka 11y ago
> As a lifelong supporter of social justice, the new wave of “social justice warriors” and their denunciation of healthy debate has come as a horrifying shock to me. Until recently, I believed that the fight for equality would herald a new age of empathy, diversity and understanding. Instead, many of my previously liberal allies have been taken over by the cult of victimhood and a collective fear of rejection. Like teenagers, they constantly check in with each other to affirm whether what they think is acceptable – and who can blame them? The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe. Seriously, latest season of South Park seems the best depiction of this phenomenon that I've seen so far.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  It is mostly signaling + one upping each other. But they managed to turn me from moderate liberal (in the EU sense, I guess I am raving socialist by US) to complete nihilist. I want to see Trump elected just to piss them off.
  - golergka 11y ago
    Labels are stupid anyway. I got detained by police on a demonstrations in support of gay rights and democratic elections. But at the same time, I believe that flat tax (not flat tax rate as in % of income, but flat tax as in constant amount of money per month) is the most just form of taxation. Not even remotely feasible, of course, and it would be very stupid to even try to implement it, but still, the most just in theory. Now — does it make me left or right?
    - iMark 11y ago
      Could you expand upon your definition of flat tax? Is, for example, the constant amount of money you mention the same of every member of the populace regardless of income? If so, it bears semblance with the UK's poll tax (or Community Charge as it was officially labelled), an early 90's tax which was disastrously received (riots in the streets across the country). It introduced by a right wing government, and subsequently repealed
effenponderousa 11y ago
The wasps who sense any idea within remote proximity to their hive will instinctively attack.
gizmo 11y ago
Justine Sacco didn't suffer a "devastating online lynching". She got a ton of nasty tweets and emails, and she got fired from her job. She found a new job (one she likes) and the internet fury eventually blew over. Unpleasant? Certainly. A lynching? Heck no. There are people who do get beaten or killed for who they are. Transgender people regularly fear for their physical safety. Minorities get abused and even killed by the police on a daily basis. So when people protest this sort of injustice online or in real life you'd expect the author to be supportive of this. Except no, she apparently considers this horrifying mob-like behavior of social justice warriors. It's the lazy stance where she supports social justice activism in theory, but when it comes down to actually protesting abuses of power (which can include rioting and other mob-like behavior) she considers it unacceptable. Never mind that historically speaking large scale public protests (= mobs) have often brought meaningful social progress. I wonder if democracy can even function without it, because people must have a way to make their voices heard when the official channels are closed to them. Don't get me wrong. Mobs are blunt instruments and without question scary. However, they're not uniquely or especially scary. So when I hear something like "[mobs] are the thing that frighten me most in the world" I have to roll my eyes. Other political issues are scarier by several orders of magnitude. Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. Not on this list: Internet rage directed at Sacco.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  Sacco was home-bound for a year and now carries a stain on her character that will be with her for her entire life. All for a badly executed joke that was liberal in its intent. Sure, plenty of people have it worse in this world, but that does not mean what happened to her was "fine" and that she was/is totally "fine". Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. All these issues depend on level-headed, reasoned debate. Mass hysteria will only make it more likely that we succumb to these threats.
  - puredemo 11y ago
    It was actually a well-executed joke. Quite acerbic. Unfortunately many click-bait "journalists" were simply too thick to understand the satire.
puredemo 11y ago
1. She's describing "in-group" preferences in most of the latter part of the article, not herd mentality. These are two separate things. 2. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct. 3. She's quite insulting. "most sane individuals on this side of the Atlantic," implying one must be insane to respect and honor 2nd amendment rights? "Preening contrarians," "infantile sneering," "rejoice in this toxic effluence." Yikes. Exactly how full of disdain and contempt is she regarding anyone's opinions that don't precisely align with her own? I find it rather hard to believe anyone she is criticizing is as vitriolic as the author seems to be. 4. The important thing is, she's found a way to feel superior to everyone.. https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > 2. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct. Actually true libertarian would think even the constitution as too restricting and prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone. Realpolitik all day all night long.
  - puredemo 11y ago
    Realpolitik is by definition not ideological, while libertarianism very much is. Quite different approaches.
  - asift 11y ago
    >would prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone Regardless of whether such libertarians are right or wrong in their beliefs about private governance, this is completely inaccurate depiction of their views. Peter Stringham's book Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life explores theoretical and empirical foundations for private governance and why it would not amount to sorting things out based on raw power. The book received praise from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."
chipsy 11y ago
Thus, esoteric philosophy will return to the world.
benihana 11y ago
I was really on board and thought it would be insightful and interesting. It's just an article aggrandizing the author! It spends most of its time discussing how sensitive and unique the author is and how they're way above joining a group because they haven't found one that is perfectly suited to every little slightly different permutation in their thought that they insists makes them unique from everyone. It's not about being horrified by herd behavior, it's about the author not getting the recognition they think they deserve from the herd.
IsaacL 11y ago
Recently, I have found myself drawn to a range of people who describe themselves or are described by others as “libertarians” – only to find once again that there’s a hymn sheet of horrors that many seem to sing from. [...] Another commonly displayed “libertarian” approach that I struggle to respect is the puerile desire to offend, bolstered by the dubious claim that this is somehow a noble and worthwhile antidote to the equally tedious culture of taking offence. [...] There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone’s personal liberty is furthered by such infantile sneering; yet swarms of supposedly liberal followers rejoice in this toxic effluence with excited applause, like an encouraging mother will celebrate her toddler’s first shit in the potty. I long had libertarian-ish leanings, but I agree with the author's points above. By coincidence, in another tab I was just reading "The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon or Why I Don’t Support Libertarian Organizations" - http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663 http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663. It's an interesting read for those of similar mind.
- smoyer 11y ago
  I also conceptually like the idea of libertarianism, but recognize that it's an impossible form of society and you can't really create a government around it. What I recommend to everyone is that they go around trying to be a libertarian - respect everyone else's rights like they'd like their own to be respected. With regard to the author's interaction with a "pack" of libertarians - you can find quite a few of groups but they rarely agree with each other.
  - asift 11y ago
    >you can't really create a government around it You say that as if it's a bug and not a feature... In all seriousness, I'm not sure I understand your claim that it's an impossible form of society. I understand the argument that the US or other existing nation states aren't going to become libertarian societies, but I see no theoretical reason why the creation of such a society is impossible (particularly when sea and space colonies start opening up new frontiers). I think this Startup School presentation by Balaji Srinavasan is relevant: https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A
sidcool 11y ago
SJWs are a new breed of idiots we have to deal with.
mmaunder 11y ago
I'm not active on Twitter and I think I've missed the SJW movement and it's effects. Perhaps the problem is that complex nuanced ideas can't be expressed in 160 characters?
- mclovinit 11y ago
  Good point. I think that is a often overlooked observation. People incited often have a tendency to invite an onrush of thoughts with a desire to express them in direct proportion to their "excitability factor". When a character limit is imposed, their tweet may as well be an empty beer bottle hurled towards their target. IMO, why one becomes incited in the first place comes from the drunken sense of control one feels when all they think they are revealing is their gravatar/profile. However, it is relatively easy to reciprocate with a "herd agenda" of one's own and launch an attack without the need to extract any real facts to damage the target's reputation. If I were to insult an individual in front of a group all physically present, I would most likely be doing so in a way that the "herd" clearly understands my message rather than the target. I have always despised this type of thinking as many do, yet it has become increasingly popular.
mmaunder 11y ago
So this feels relevant. I spotted this piece in this morning's NYTimes front page: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-sisters-boyfriend-is-gay.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-... "My sister has been dating her boyfriend for two years. They live together and seem mostly happy. And I am happy for them, except for one thing: I am about 99 percent sure he is gay. Now, I have no problem with homosexuality, but you can understand my concern. Also, I am not the only one who thinks this. Several male friends have told me that he has tried to kiss other men or grab their crotches. I would like to bring this up with my sister. How should I do it? Michelle, New York" The response: "Request denied! Before you say anything hurtful to your sister, let’s take a peek at some of the (homophobic-adjacent) assumptions that you’ve made on your (probably well-intentioned) road to judgment. Your 99 percent certainty rests on unknown evidence. (Spare me your gaydar.) But I am willing to bet that much of it involves silly stereotypes about masculinity. Is the boyfriend effeminate? Does he follow fashion or musical theater? News flash: He can still be straight." "More problematic is the “gay panic” of your male friends, whose gossipy stories may rely on secondhand reports from still other men. Not so reliable. What’s more, I don’t buy it. Gay men and lesbians have long been, and often still are, a persecuted minority. (Have you seen the excellent film “Carol” yet?) The idea that a gay man could blithely and repeatedly “grab the crotches” of his straight cohorts is absurd. There would be consequences." This story was linked on the front page of the NY Times this morning. I may be completely uncalibrated and out of touch with modern values and sensitivities. But I don't think I am. So I'm curious: Does anyone else see anything a little odd about this piece?
- arethuza 11y ago
  The reply also contains: "If your sister’s life is working for her, back off. Once you share your views, you can’t unshare them. " Which seems pretty good advice to me.
  - mmaunder 11y ago
    I'd hate to think my trusted friends or family are lying to me because they can't unshare.
- 11y ago
jondubois 11y ago
I have anti-herd mentality. When a large group of people unanimously agree about something, I get an insatiable urge to argue against the consensus. Does that make me a troll? I think I'm just against extremism. To me, herd mentality is a form of extremism. Whenever I argue, I'm not trying to convince the other person of my argument for the sake of winning; I just want them to meet me half way. In summary, I'm against people believing in anything with 100% certainty. Doubting things and changing your mind often is the right approach to life... I think.
tobbyb 11y ago
There a particular personality that is given to self righteousness and imposing on others, and these self appointed arbiters quickly attach to these causes and use them to police other people, nevermind the cause. The internet has made this kind of self righteous mob effortless, and they feed off each other making justice or the original cause completely secondary to their own need to impose their views. Civilized society depends on the rule of law. There is a large mechanism in place in any civilized society with an extensive process to first decide guilt and then give the guilty an opportunity to pay the price, reform and try again. This by definition rules out arbitrary individual perceptions of justice or injustice, discrimination or organizing to 'directly' deliver it, to prevent anarchy. Justice by definition cannot empower some arbitrary individuals or groups views over others. Activism targets laws or injustice based on reason and not individuals. The objective is not to shame or deliver consequences for an individual but change the law. Self righteous mobs on the other hand driven by their own opinions and the need to impose their views, rather than justice, target individuals. Discrimination is illegal and has a huge social, personal, and professional consequences. If an individual escapes that somehow it indicates a flaw in the rule of law which activism would target, not the individual. But that's not fulfilling for those driven by self importance. You may decide something is wrong but only the rule of law can make that decision objectively and enforce consequences. A mob convinced of its own infallibility sidetracks all that, evades accountability in favour of their own perceptions and in an exercise in pure self importance and injustice delivers consequences. That is little to do with justice and everything to do with vanity, self importance and inability to recognize the limitation of one own views, and the value of activism and rule of law.
js8 11y ago
It's interesting to note that many public intellectuals were publicly shamed for their opinions, and it was later pretty much reconsidered. Two examples come to my mind, Noam Chomsky and Tomas Garrigue Masaryk. Also interestingly these two guys have very strongly opposed most sorts of elitism, while the phrase "herd mentality" is often used by elitists to justify their beliefs.

67 points by tomhoward 11y ago

Site appears down. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fautiYJ:quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd-mentality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fa...

mkaroumi 11y ago
Works for me...
- tomhoward 11y ago
  Yeah looks like it's back now.

blfr 11y ago

This surely sums up the unambitious and self-seeking aims of those who make it their business to offend No, it doesn't. There's just one Milo Yiannopoulos while there are thousands upon thousands of purposely anonymous channers making memes and cracking jokes. I don't know how to say it without sounding negative but this is an uninsightful article based on little more than outcast mood affiliation.

madez 11y ago
I found the article insightful because it puts in words what I also felt sometimes. The tone of your comment reminds of it.
rvikmanis 11y ago
I don't think this article was meant to be particularily insightful on its own. Its purpose might be to bootstrap the insight machinery, which it accomplished, evidently.

bootload 11y ago

"At its worst, it gives us mindless thuggery, the kind of collective violence exemplified and explored in Golding’s Lord of the Flies." There's a reason kids are made to read/watch this book in school. The author was an English Master at Bishops [0] while he wrote this book. That's why it rings true. First hand knowledge of the pecking order and the herd in action. " The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe." Excommunication is dangerous because it can result in death. [0] UK, COE Grammer, Salisbury, Wiltshire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Notable_staff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Not...

orthoganol 11y ago

I have trouble endorsing positions like this just at the level of ethics. Refusing to work with others because of 'disagreements,' even those as similar as her fellow writers, is a good way to never have an impact on the world and change it for the better. I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish something great. What does that say about your strength of person that you find it threatening, or at the minimum, a 'big deal,' to associate with those you disagree with?

Nutmog 11y ago
I think she meant the group kicked her out because the other members were unable to work with someone who openly disagreed with them.
bootload 11y ago
"I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish something great." Grey man. Say nothing, don't make ripples and don't be noticed. Works well when SHTF and possibly when nothing of any consequence is happening. There is one aspect I don't like with this approach: By sitting back, not being noticed you loose the chance to lead. In LOTF I can think of one person who tried this approach, Simon. When he voiced his opinion on the snake thingy, noting it was in fact a dead airman, he was ignored. By taking the grey man approach you fail to take the chance and opportunity to lead, letting others dictate your situation.

edent 11y ago

There is a nasty nest of people who seem to relish in the pain and suffering that they cause. It is not an intellectually stimulating activity - it doesn't further any particular ideological cause, and I find it extremely troubling. Last night a friend of mine was set upon by a group of (self-declared) Libertarians for having the temerity to tweet about being disabled. I can't quite get into the mindset of the people who harass others online. Is it juvenile lashing out? The uncontrolled rage of the impotent? Or people who get a sadistic thrill from detached torture?

netcan 11y ago
I'm not sure how to classify it adequately. It may be that classification is inevitably oversimplifying. But, I do think that it's a close relative of conservatism that's found in almost every culture and can often get very extreme. Strict codes of conduct, dress, speech and such are a consequence of people instinctively creating and policing conformity. That can be thinking and voicing a dissident opinion about religion or politics, dressing outlandishly, speaking improperly or any other element of culture that's cohesive. It isn't a coincidence that in 18th century Japan and 18th century Morocco, people wore different hats. That conformity in hats happened as people themselves conformed to local hat culture and pressured those around them to conform. I think you're right to call it juvenile. Juveniles seem especially vigilant about conforming and policing conformity. A 14 year old is more likely to berate a nonconforming classmate than a 40 year old. Being online and anonymous tears down some of the barriers to both taking offence and offering it. But, I think that the instinct to find a core identity and violently defending it is, unfortunately, innate.
tomhoward 11y ago
I understand this question is examined in Jon Ronson's recent book So You've Been Publicly Shamed[1] I haven't read it but I've heard him discussing it on The Nerdist[2] and The Joe Rogan Experience[3] podcasts, both of which were very entertaining and insightful. Though I never stooped to the level of harassing and shaming people, I did go through an angry white male libertarian stage, and having been through that I think the underlying motive for the asshole behaviour is something to do with entitlement and resentment. I.e., "I deserve better than this (more money/status/respect/sex etc), if the world's not gonna give me what I deserve, then at least I can make other people as miserable as I am". [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham... [2] http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/ http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/ [3] http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1 http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1

golergka 11y ago

> As a lifelong supporter of social justice, the new wave of “social justice warriors” and their denunciation of healthy debate has come as a horrifying shock to me. Until recently, I believed that the fight for equality would herald a new age of empathy, diversity and understanding. Instead, many of my previously liberal allies have been taken over by the cult of victimhood and a collective fear of rejection. Like teenagers, they constantly check in with each other to affirm whether what they think is acceptable – and who can blame them? The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe. Seriously, latest season of South Park seems the best depiction of this phenomenon that I've seen so far.

venomsnake 11y ago
It is mostly signaling + one upping each other. But they managed to turn me from moderate liberal (in the EU sense, I guess I am raving socialist by US) to complete nihilist. I want to see Trump elected just to piss them off.
- golergka 11y ago
  Labels are stupid anyway. I got detained by police on a demonstrations in support of gay rights and democratic elections. But at the same time, I believe that flat tax (not flat tax rate as in % of income, but flat tax as in constant amount of money per month) is the most just form of taxation. Not even remotely feasible, of course, and it would be very stupid to even try to implement it, but still, the most just in theory. Now — does it make me left or right?
  - iMark 11y ago
    Could you expand upon your definition of flat tax? Is, for example, the constant amount of money you mention the same of every member of the populace regardless of income? If so, it bears semblance with the UK's poll tax (or Community Charge as it was officially labelled), an early 90's tax which was disastrously received (riots in the streets across the country). It introduced by a right wing government, and subsequently repealed

effenponderousa 11y ago

The wasps who sense any idea within remote proximity to their hive will instinctively attack.

gizmo 11y ago

Justine Sacco didn't suffer a "devastating online lynching". She got a ton of nasty tweets and emails, and she got fired from her job. She found a new job (one she likes) and the internet fury eventually blew over. Unpleasant? Certainly. A lynching? Heck no. There are people who do get beaten or killed for who they are. Transgender people regularly fear for their physical safety. Minorities get abused and even killed by the police on a daily basis. So when people protest this sort of injustice online or in real life you'd expect the author to be supportive of this. Except no, she apparently considers this horrifying mob-like behavior of social justice warriors. It's the lazy stance where she supports social justice activism in theory, but when it comes down to actually protesting abuses of power (which can include rioting and other mob-like behavior) she considers it unacceptable. Never mind that historically speaking large scale public protests (= mobs) have often brought meaningful social progress. I wonder if democracy can even function without it, because people must have a way to make their voices heard when the official channels are closed to them. Don't get me wrong. Mobs are blunt instruments and without question scary. However, they're not uniquely or especially scary. So when I hear something like "[mobs] are the thing that frighten me most in the world" I have to roll my eyes. Other political issues are scarier by several orders of magnitude. Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. Not on this list: Internet rage directed at Sacco.

tomhoward 11y ago
Sacco was home-bound for a year and now carries a stain on her character that will be with her for her entire life. All for a badly executed joke that was liberal in its intent. Sure, plenty of people have it worse in this world, but that does not mean what happened to her was "fine" and that she was/is totally "fine". Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. All these issues depend on level-headed, reasoned debate. Mass hysteria will only make it more likely that we succumb to these threats.
- puredemo 11y ago
  It was actually a well-executed joke. Quite acerbic. Unfortunately many click-bait "journalists" were simply too thick to understand the satire.

puredemo 11y ago

1. She's describing "in-group" preferences in most of the latter part of the article, not herd mentality. These are two separate things. 2. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct. 3. She's quite insulting. "most sane individuals on this side of the Atlantic," implying one must be insane to respect and honor 2nd amendment rights? "Preening contrarians," "infantile sneering," "rejoice in this toxic effluence." Yikes. Exactly how full of disdain and contempt is she regarding anyone's opinions that don't precisely align with her own? I find it rather hard to believe anyone she is criticizing is as vitriolic as the author seems to be. 4. The important thing is, she's found a way to feel superior to everyone.. https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/

venomsnake 11y ago
> 2. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct. Actually true libertarian would think even the constitution as too restricting and prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone. Realpolitik all day all night long.
- puredemo 11y ago
  Realpolitik is by definition not ideological, while libertarianism very much is. Quite different approaches.
- asift 11y ago
  >would prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone Regardless of whether such libertarians are right or wrong in their beliefs about private governance, this is completely inaccurate depiction of their views. Peter Stringham's book Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life explores theoretical and empirical foundations for private governance and why it would not amount to sorting things out based on raw power. The book received praise from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."

chipsy 11y ago

Thus, esoteric philosophy will return to the world.

benihana 11y ago

I was really on board and thought it would be insightful and interesting. It's just an article aggrandizing the author! It spends most of its time discussing how sensitive and unique the author is and how they're way above joining a group because they haven't found one that is perfectly suited to every little slightly different permutation in their thought that they insists makes them unique from everyone. It's not about being horrified by herd behavior, it's about the author not getting the recognition they think they deserve from the herd.

IsaacL 11y ago

Recently, I have found myself drawn to a range of people who describe themselves or are described by others as “libertarians” – only to find once again that there’s a hymn sheet of horrors that many seem to sing from. [...] Another commonly displayed “libertarian” approach that I struggle to respect is the puerile desire to offend, bolstered by the dubious claim that this is somehow a noble and worthwhile antidote to the equally tedious culture of taking offence. [...] There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone’s personal liberty is furthered by such infantile sneering; yet swarms of supposedly liberal followers rejoice in this toxic effluence with excited applause, like an encouraging mother will celebrate her toddler’s first shit in the potty. I long had libertarian-ish leanings, but I agree with the author's points above. By coincidence, in another tab I was just reading "The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon or Why I Don’t Support Libertarian Organizations" - http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663 http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663. It's an interesting read for those of similar mind.

smoyer 11y ago
I also conceptually like the idea of libertarianism, but recognize that it's an impossible form of society and you can't really create a government around it. What I recommend to everyone is that they go around trying to be a libertarian - respect everyone else's rights like they'd like their own to be respected. With regard to the author's interaction with a "pack" of libertarians - you can find quite a few of groups but they rarely agree with each other.
- asift 11y ago
  >you can't really create a government around it You say that as if it's a bug and not a feature... In all seriousness, I'm not sure I understand your claim that it's an impossible form of society. I understand the argument that the US or other existing nation states aren't going to become libertarian societies, but I see no theoretical reason why the creation of such a society is impossible (particularly when sea and space colonies start opening up new frontiers). I think this Startup School presentation by Balaji Srinavasan is relevant: https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A

sidcool 11y ago

SJWs are a new breed of idiots we have to deal with.

mmaunder 11y ago

I'm not active on Twitter and I think I've missed the SJW movement and it's effects. Perhaps the problem is that complex nuanced ideas can't be expressed in 160 characters?

mclovinit 11y ago
Good point. I think that is a often overlooked observation. People incited often have a tendency to invite an onrush of thoughts with a desire to express them in direct proportion to their "excitability factor". When a character limit is imposed, their tweet may as well be an empty beer bottle hurled towards their target. IMO, why one becomes incited in the first place comes from the drunken sense of control one feels when all they think they are revealing is their gravatar/profile. However, it is relatively easy to reciprocate with a "herd agenda" of one's own and launch an attack without the need to extract any real facts to damage the target's reputation. If I were to insult an individual in front of a group all physically present, I would most likely be doing so in a way that the "herd" clearly understands my message rather than the target. I have always despised this type of thinking as many do, yet it has become increasingly popular.

mmaunder 11y ago

So this feels relevant. I spotted this piece in this morning's NYTimes front page: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-sisters-boyfriend-is-gay.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-... "My sister has been dating her boyfriend for two years. They live together and seem mostly happy. And I am happy for them, except for one thing: I am about 99 percent sure he is gay. Now, I have no problem with homosexuality, but you can understand my concern. Also, I am not the only one who thinks this. Several male friends have told me that he has tried to kiss other men or grab their crotches. I would like to bring this up with my sister. How should I do it? Michelle, New York" The response: "Request denied! Before you say anything hurtful to your sister, let’s take a peek at some of the (homophobic-adjacent) assumptions that you’ve made on your (probably well-intentioned) road to judgment. Your 99 percent certainty rests on unknown evidence. (Spare me your gaydar.) But I am willing to bet that much of it involves silly stereotypes about masculinity. Is the boyfriend effeminate? Does he follow fashion or musical theater? News flash: He can still be straight." "More problematic is the “gay panic” of your male friends, whose gossipy stories may rely on secondhand reports from still other men. Not so reliable. What’s more, I don’t buy it. Gay men and lesbians have long been, and often still are, a persecuted minority. (Have you seen the excellent film “Carol” yet?) The idea that a gay man could blithely and repeatedly “grab the crotches” of his straight cohorts is absurd. There would be consequences." This story was linked on the front page of the NY Times this morning. I may be completely uncalibrated and out of touch with modern values and sensitivities. But I don't think I am. So I'm curious: Does anyone else see anything a little odd about this piece?

arethuza 11y ago
The reply also contains: "If your sister’s life is working for her, back off. Once you share your views, you can’t unshare them. " Which seems pretty good advice to me.
- mmaunder 11y ago
  I'd hate to think my trusted friends or family are lying to me because they can't unshare.
11y ago

jondubois 11y ago

I have anti-herd mentality. When a large group of people unanimously agree about something, I get an insatiable urge to argue against the consensus. Does that make me a troll? I think I'm just against extremism. To me, herd mentality is a form of extremism. Whenever I argue, I'm not trying to convince the other person of my argument for the sake of winning; I just want them to meet me half way. In summary, I'm against people believing in anything with 100% certainty. Doubting things and changing your mind often is the right approach to life... I think.

tobbyb 11y ago

There a particular personality that is given to self righteousness and imposing on others, and these self appointed arbiters quickly attach to these causes and use them to police other people, nevermind the cause. The internet has made this kind of self righteous mob effortless, and they feed off each other making justice or the original cause completely secondary to their own need to impose their views. Civilized society depends on the rule of law. There is a large mechanism in place in any civilized society with an extensive process to first decide guilt and then give the guilty an opportunity to pay the price, reform and try again. This by definition rules out arbitrary individual perceptions of justice or injustice, discrimination or organizing to 'directly' deliver it, to prevent anarchy. Justice by definition cannot empower some arbitrary individuals or groups views over others. Activism targets laws or injustice based on reason and not individuals. The objective is not to shame or deliver consequences for an individual but change the law. Self righteous mobs on the other hand driven by their own opinions and the need to impose their views, rather than justice, target individuals. Discrimination is illegal and has a huge social, personal, and professional consequences. If an individual escapes that somehow it indicates a flaw in the rule of law which activism would target, not the individual. But that's not fulfilling for those driven by self importance. You may decide something is wrong but only the rule of law can make that decision objectively and enforce consequences. A mob convinced of its own infallibility sidetracks all that, evades accountability in favour of their own perceptions and in an exercise in pure self importance and injustice delivers consequences. That is little to do with justice and everything to do with vanity, self importance and inability to recognize the limitation of one own views, and the value of activism and rule of law.

js8 11y ago

It's interesting to note that many public intellectuals were publicly shamed for their opinions, and it was later pretty much reconsidered. Two examples come to my mind, Noam Chomsky and Tomas Garrigue Masaryk. Also interestingly these two guys have very strongly opposed most sorts of elitism, while the phrase "herd mentality" is often used by elitists to justify their beliefs.