4 ms·

Every government claims to be operating for the greater good. Sometimes that results in tyrannies. I think this discussion might just be getting lost in the g

by gloob 16y ago

Every government claims to be operating for the greater good. Sometimes that results in tyrannies. I think this discussion might just be getting lost in the generalities of such statements, though. Do you have a more specific point to make?

gojomo 16y ago
Totally independent of any issues regarding Wikileaks and DDoS attacks, I was reacting to Alex3917's statement: A mob is just a group of people. If we are ever going to have a free, just, and rational society then by definition the mob is going to have to support freedom, justice, and rationality. That's not true. 'Mobs', specifically, are unruly assemblages and more often irrational, unjust, and freedom-destroying. A mob doesn't have to be brought around to righteous thinking for society to function; it has to be dissolved, and stop acting like a mob. Ideally this is when its smartest members wake from an angry emotional trance and choose to become other kinds of 'groups of people' that work better for rational and just aims. But sometimes it's when adults say, enough is enough, and apply hard force against the mob. Actual mobs sweep tyrants into power, either populist tyrants, or reactionary tyrants. The framers of the US Constitution understood this, at least. Let's not fetishize the idea of mobs as any mass action in the name of some murky form of 'social justice'.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Actual mobs sweep tyrants into power They've removed them as well. See "French Revolution", Romania, Albania and a bunch of others.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Open rebellion against government forces isn't quite a mob, despite some similarities.
    - gloob 16y ago
      This is getting close to being a No True Scotsman type of situation. I'm reasonably sure that mobs were present during the French revolution, for instance.
      - gojomo 16y ago
        Indeed it is approaching 'No True Scotsman' hair-splitting, and that's unfortunate, but shared definitions are important for discussion. My objection is to the watering-down of 'mob' to mean any 'group of people', including those who have the noblest aims. A 'mob' is not a 'movement', nor is it a 'rebellion' or 'revolution'. It's angry people breaking rules and doing unfocused damage with the exercise of raw bulk power. That we can cherry-pick a few examples where similar action caused (or more likely, just correlated with) beneficial change shouldn't make 'mob' a positive-connotation term for the 'group of people' that via its 'support' determines whether society is 'free, just, and rational'. We should prefer to rely on free speech, elections, courts, legislatures, voluntary assemblies, armies and even 'well-organized militias' over angry anonymous 'mobs'.

by gloob 16y ago

gojomo 16y ago

Totally independent of any issues regarding Wikileaks and DDoS attacks, I was reacting to Alex3917's statement: A mob is just a group of people. If we are ever going to have a free, just, and rational society then by definition the mob is going to have to support freedom, justice, and rationality. That's not true. 'Mobs', specifically, are unruly assemblages and more often irrational, unjust, and freedom-destroying. A mob doesn't have to be brought around to righteous thinking for society to function; it has to be dissolved, and stop acting like a mob. Ideally this is when its smartest members wake from an angry emotional trance and choose to become other kinds of 'groups of people' that work better for rational and just aims. But sometimes it's when adults say, enough is enough, and apply hard force against the mob. Actual mobs sweep tyrants into power, either populist tyrants, or reactionary tyrants. The framers of the US Constitution understood this, at least. Let's not fetishize the idea of mobs as any mass action in the name of some murky form of 'social justice'.

jacquesm 16y ago
> Actual mobs sweep tyrants into power They've removed them as well. See "French Revolution", Romania, Albania and a bunch of others.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Open rebellion against government forces isn't quite a mob, despite some similarities.
  - gloob 16y ago
    This is getting close to being a No True Scotsman type of situation. I'm reasonably sure that mobs were present during the French revolution, for instance.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      Indeed it is approaching 'No True Scotsman' hair-splitting, and that's unfortunate, but shared definitions are important for discussion. My objection is to the watering-down of 'mob' to mean any 'group of people', including those who have the noblest aims. A 'mob' is not a 'movement', nor is it a 'rebellion' or 'revolution'. It's angry people breaking rules and doing unfocused damage with the exercise of raw bulk power. That we can cherry-pick a few examples where similar action caused (or more likely, just correlated with) beneficial change shouldn't make 'mob' a positive-connotation term for the 'group of people' that via its 'support' determines whether society is 'free, just, and rational'. We should prefer to rely on free speech, elections, courts, legislatures, voluntary assemblies, armies and even 'well-organized militias' over angry anonymous 'mobs'.