4 ms·

Thanks for reaching back to me. I didn't study sociology so take this with a grain of salt. I think the difference is in motivation and group dynamics. An ang

by zimbatm 13y ago

Thanks for reaching back to me. I didn't study sociology so take this with a grain of salt. I think the difference is in motivation and group dynamics. An angry mob is motivated by fear or anger and doesn't think rationally. It's generally dangerous for both the actors in the group and the target. Also everyone can become part of a mob as it taps into our basic instinct. I think that a mob is formed when a critical mass of anger or fear is formed and resolved once the danger disappears. This is in contrast with a protest. In a protest you're trying to promote an idea and in that sense you will try to advocate, talk to people and expose your point of view in the hope that they will adopt it. You still have a group of people but who are motivated by solving a specific cause. More noble sentiments are at play like compassion and respect. A good example of that would be advocacy of free speech. It's entirely possible that you're seeing something different happening here. I felt anger transpiring trough the posts I was reading. My first post was equally a reaction to that and to other similar events that I saw happening in the past.

dalke 13y ago
I accept that caution about an angry mob. My belief and concern is that the term can too easily be used to delegitimize opposition. Boycotts often start when people are too angry to leave things as they are. Someone who doesn't agree with the logic behind the boycott can claim that the boycotters are motivated by anger and not thinking rationally, thus recasting a legitimate boycott as only the actions of an angry irrational mob. In this instance, I used your clarification and I see a protest. There was an single idea; Eich should not be CEO of Mozilla, for reasons we all know. Some core Mozilla people did talk to others, by posting why they did not want to be associated with a Mozilla with Eich as CEO. Organizations like OKCupid also posted their reasons for calling for a boycott. In your previous postings you expressed an optimism of how people should resolve issues. Here too you continue, when you mention that "more noble sentiments are at play" in a protest. My observation is that many protests are not based on compassion and respect. Rather, given that there are both pro-immigration protests and anti-immigration protests, and pro-gun and anti-gun protests, it's rather murky to figure out where the nobility is in each one. A classic example of the tension in the right to assemble is when the Nazis wanted the right to have a protest march in Skokie. I don't want to say there was nobility there, so I don't really want to use "nobility" as a guide to determine if something is actually a protest. If someone says they are protesting, then that's enough for me. I also observe that there is a wide diversity in most protests. The core organizers often have to struggle to keep focus. The many interviews of participants in the early Occupy movement make that pretty clear. So while the core might be promoting a single idea, other perhaps less considered views also get into the mix. I've seen that a common opposition tactic is to do street interviews with the non-core supporters to show how ignorant/ill-informed/angry those people are, and paint the rest of the protesters with the same brush. I think you see now why I struggle when I read people use terms like "mob", "bully", or "witch hunt"; I can't see what it's true, and have begun to believe it's mostly a rhetorical tactic to delegitimize opposition viewpoints - in your terms, to justify not reaching out. I do not believe you are using it that way. Thank you for your followup and patience.

by zimbatm 13y ago

dalke 13y ago

I accept that caution about an angry mob. My belief and concern is that the term can too easily be used to delegitimize opposition. Boycotts often start when people are too angry to leave things as they are. Someone who doesn't agree with the logic behind the boycott can claim that the boycotters are motivated by anger and not thinking rationally, thus recasting a legitimate boycott as only the actions of an angry irrational mob. In this instance, I used your clarification and I see a protest. There was an single idea; Eich should not be CEO of Mozilla, for reasons we all know. Some core Mozilla people did talk to others, by posting why they did not want to be associated with a Mozilla with Eich as CEO. Organizations like OKCupid also posted their reasons for calling for a boycott. In your previous postings you expressed an optimism of how people should resolve issues. Here too you continue, when you mention that "more noble sentiments are at play" in a protest. My observation is that many protests are not based on compassion and respect. Rather, given that there are both pro-immigration protests and anti-immigration protests, and pro-gun and anti-gun protests, it's rather murky to figure out where the nobility is in each one. A classic example of the tension in the right to assemble is when the Nazis wanted the right to have a protest march in Skokie. I don't want to say there was nobility there, so I don't really want to use "nobility" as a guide to determine if something is actually a protest. If someone says they are protesting, then that's enough for me. I also observe that there is a wide diversity in most protests. The core organizers often have to struggle to keep focus. The many interviews of participants in the early Occupy movement make that pretty clear. So while the core might be promoting a single idea, other perhaps less considered views also get into the mix. I've seen that a common opposition tactic is to do street interviews with the non-core supporters to show how ignorant/ill-informed/angry those people are, and paint the rest of the protesters with the same brush. I think you see now why I struggle when I read people use terms like "mob", "bully", or "witch hunt"; I can't see what it's true, and have begun to believe it's mostly a rhetorical tactic to delegitimize opposition viewpoints - in your terms, to justify not reaching out. I do not believe you are using it that way. Thank you for your followup and patience.