Expressing Your Opinion and Getting Digitally Lynched

[Lemon Merchant]

The problem is with our society as it currently is. As we go further into the social media realm, we take on this mob mentality when we see something that we disagree with. Getting digitally lynched is pretty much a real phenomenon these days. You see it constantly in the news where there is outrage on social media about what someone has done or said, and a large group of people mobilize to shout down the person with the opinion/viewpoint. It's to the point that a felon cannot get a fair trial these days because they are already convicted in social media before they even get to a courtroom. Lives are frequently ruined.

It even happens here at CFC:OT. Someone will say something, and someone disagrees and a number of people will jump on them for it, and we then lose the ability to have a conversation about the topic. It becomes a death match with four or five people ganging up on the poster. It's been happening constantly since last summer, and it is very undesirable as it makes OT an inhospitable place.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If Siddhartha Gautama, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed of Mecca, Martin Luther, Adam Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others just capitulated to the hostility of a greater society to their points of view and other shut up, or highly compromised, watered down, or moderated their message to please the status quo, where would we be now?

You put yourself in great company. How about all the people who go through life just trying to be kind and helpful? They seem pretty important too. If you are putting yourself in the former group, your public profile is way too low.

The problem is with our society as it currently is. As we go further into the social media realm, we take on this mob mentality when we see something that we disagree with. Getting digitally lynched is pretty much a real phenomenon these days. You see it constantly in the news where there is outrage on social media about what someone has done or said, and a large group of people mobilize to shout down the person with the opinion/viewpoint. It's to the point that a felon cannot get a fair trial these days because they are already convicted in social media before they even get to a courtroom. Lives are frequently ruined.

It even happens here at CFC:OT. Someone will say something, and someone disagrees and a number of people will jump on them for it, and we then lose the ability to have a conversation about the topic. It becomes a death match with four or five people ganging up on the poster. It's been happening constantly since last summer, and it is very undesirable as it makes OT an inhospitable place.

That is why it is important for people to see and understand what they are doing. What's their goal? Be provocative? Silence the enemy? Troll? Be a jerk? Participate? Civility requires manners and manners require rules, even those rules are fuzzy. I think that much of the problem is that folks want to participate meaningfully but don't know how.

 

[Patine]

You put yourself in great company. How about all the people who go through life just trying to be kind and helpful? They seem pretty important too. If you are putting yourself in the former group, your public profile is way too low.

I said no such thing. But I will point out, that all of those people were once in their lives, in the grand scheme of things "nobodies," - and would have remained so if they heeded your advice here. Plus, does being kind and helpful also mean conforming to popular opinions that cause pain, suffering, intolerance, and death - even if "far away and out of sight?"

 

[Birdjaguar]

I said no such thing. But I will point out, that all of those people were once in their lives, in the grand scheme of things "nobodies," - and would have remained so if they heeded your advice here. Plus, does being kind and helpful also mean conforming to popular opinions that cause pain, suffering, intolerance, and death - even if "far away and out of sight?"

This is an example of you trying to expand a pretty precise topic into something it is not. You are not Siddhartha or Nelson Mandela. OT is not 5th C BC India or racially divided South Africa. And being helpful and kind is unrelated to popular opinions. This post is a great example of why some folks pay you no mind or get on your case.

The issue: People are critical of your posting style and you sometimes get dog piled for it. You can wear that as a badge of something if you want. Have fun. But if you want to participate meaningfully here there are ways to do so.

 

[Patine]

This is an example of you trying to expand a pretty precise topic into something it is not. You are not Siddhartha or Nelson Mandela. OT is not 5th C BC India or racially divided South Africa. And being helpful and kind is unrelated to popular opinions. This post is a great example of why some folks pay you no mind or get on your case.

The issue: People are critical of your posting style and you sometimes get dog piled for it. You can wear that as a badge of something if you want. Have fun. But if you want to participate meaningfully here there are ways to do so.

No, you are wrong. You are trying to artificially and arbitrarily narrow the debate to lock out any of my points, or those of other posters, you don't like, so only your points - or one's you approve of - SEEM to be all that's relevant. And you're "high school teacher," way of posting is used as a tactic to aid in this maneuvering. But I'm not unfamiliar with this style of presenting points. I've dealt with it before.

 

[Hamid.H]

i dont understand the point of this thread. could someone please clarify? the title is confusing, it doesnt apear to have anything to do with the conversation which is now entirely out of context having been ripped from another thread. are we making new threads everytime @Birdjaguar gets bootyblasted over someones post now? i really dont get this at all.

hh

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, you are wrong. You are trying to artificially and arbitrarily narrow the debate to lock out any of my points, or those of other posters, you don't like, so only your points - or one's you approve of - SEEM to be all that's relevant. And you're "high school teacher," way of posting is used as a tactic to aid in this maneuvering. But I'm not unfamiliar with this style of presenting points. I've dealt with it before.

The discussion has been about digit dog piling and how what one posts can contribute to that; now you want to expand it to include: Siddhartha Gautama, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed of Mecca, Martin Luther, Adam Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others [who didn't] just capitulate to the hostility of a greater society to their points of view and other shut up...

Go ahead and have that conversation. It doesn't interest me. Mistreatment of posters does.

As history repeats itself here, I respectfully step away from the conversation. You win. But wait...what about Attila the Hun? He didn't take any crap either.

 

[Birdjaguar]

i dont understand the point of this thread. could someone please clarify? the title is confusing, it doesnt apear to have anything to do with the conversation which is now entirely out of context having been ripped from another thread. are we making new threads everytime @Birdjaguar gets bootyblasted over someones post now? i really dont get this at all.

hh

The point was to remove a conversation that had derailed the Iraq thread. Patine has derailed it again to avoid talking about his posting problems.

 

[Hamid.H]

The point was to remove a conversation that had derailed the Iraq thread. Patine has derailed it again to avoid talking about his posting problems.

dude all you did is make a fuss about whatever he said that you disagreed with and got that conversation moved to another thread so you could bail on it without having to defend your position. this whole situation is very transparent as demonstrated below.

As history repeats itself here, I respectfully step away from the conversation. You win. But wait...what about Attila the Hun? He didn't take any crap either.

hh

 

[Birdjaguar]

dude all you did is make a fuss about whatever he said that you disagreed with and got that conversation moved to another thread so you could bail on it without having to defend your position. this whole situation is very transparent as demonstrated below.



hh

Our conversation actually started much earlier in the thread than lemon moved. You have to go further back to see the whole thing.

 

[Patine]

The discussion has been about digit dog piling and how what one posts can contribute to that; now you want to expand it to include: Siddhartha Gautama, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed of Mecca, Martin Luther, Adam Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others [who didn't] just capitulate to the hostility of a greater society to their points of view and other shut up...

Go ahead and have that conversation. It doesn't interest me. Mistreatment of posters does.

As history repeats itself here, I respectfully step away from the conversation. You win. But wait...what about Attila the Hun? He didn't take any crap either.

Well, obviously you have no conviction and believe in nothing, and have nothing but contempt for those who think for themselves. A consensus "hive drone." Or, at least, that's the message I'm getting here. That's what is sounds like.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, obviously you have no conviction and believe in nothing, and have nothing but contempt for those who think for themselves. A consensus "hive drone." Or, at least, that's the message I'm getting here. That's what is sounds like.

You have it exactly right. That's who I am. Damn, someone figured it out.

 

[BCheek]

Boomers don't need to defend their positions. It's like hitting the pavement with a good firm handshake, a guaranteed success.

 

[Patine]

You have it exactly right. That's who I am. Damn, someone figured it out.

Well, O'Brien of the Thought Police, 1+1 equals 2, not 3, and Emanuel Goldstein was right all along!

 

[Berzerker]

Soleimani’s efforts ended up provoking the U.S. attack on Friday that killed him and Muhandis

Give that man a Darwin Award and a Golden Karma trophy

assuming of course Reuters isn't repeating CIA talking points

I had no idea the CFC OT forum had as strict, stringent, narrowly-defined, and undissenting a community as a YE Christian site? It just somehow NEVER came across that way - at all.

You're not familiar with the echo chamber here?

The "what is acceptable in a discussion" rules are both formal (ask a moderator) and informal. You have been hit with informal rules by a vocal majority of posters. They either hit back (like in this thread, or walk away from you. @Berzerker is the perfect example of whataboutism here. I pretty much gave up on his political posts and just ignore them now. There is no point.

Ouch! Oh well... Will people please stop throwing stones at the Democrat's fine glass houses?

Please explain.

Really?

That is why it is important for people to see and understand what they are doing. What's their goal? Be provocative? Silence the enemy? Troll? Be a jerk? Participate? Civility requires manners and manners require rules, even those rules are fuzzy. I think that much of the problem is that folks want to participate meaningfully but don't know how.

Trump is a traitor and the people who voted for him are soulless Nazi scum. Thats about par for the course around here.

Go ahead and have that conversation. It doesn't interest me. Mistreatment of posters does.

lol, sure it does

Do you feel mistreated, Patine? BJ's here to help because he cares. Oh wait...

 

[Kyriakos]

You put yourself in great company. How about all the people who go through life just trying to be kind and helpful?

I suppose those do not tend to be apologists for rogue assassination

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I had no idea the CFC OT forum had as strict, stringent, narrowly-defined, and undissenting a community as a YE Christian site? It just somehow NEVER came across that way - at all.

It depends on the thread and if certain people got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

That said, I've certainly seen more narrow instances of "popular opinion only, please" being tolerated before the dogpiling begins.

No. BJ asked. I just moved Patine's post as it was in context.

It's confusing as hell for people when the OP literally starts in the middle of a conversation with no context provided for people who weren't following it before.

A link to the previous conversation in the OP would have been a considerate thing to do.

The problem is with our society as it currently is. As we go further into the social media realm, we take on this mob mentality when we see something that we disagree with. Getting digitally lynched is pretty much a real phenomenon these days. You see it constantly in the news where there is outrage on social media about what someone has done or said, and a large group of people mobilize to shout down the person with the opinion/viewpoint. It's to the point that a felon cannot get a fair trial these days because they are already convicted in social media before they even get to a courtroom. Lives are frequently ruined.

It even happens here at CFC:OT. Someone will say something, and someone disagrees and a number of people will jump on them for it, and we then lose the ability to have a conversation about the topic. It becomes a death match with four or five people ganging up on the poster. It's been happening constantly since last summer, and it is very undesirable as it makes OT an inhospitable place.

It's been a common thing long before last summer.

The discussion has been about digit dog piling and how what one posts can contribute to that; now you want to expand it to include: Siddhartha Gautama, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed of Mecca, Martin Luther, Adam Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others [who didn't] just capitulate to the hostility of a greater society to their points of view and other shut up...

Go ahead and have that conversation. It doesn't interest me. Mistreatment of posters does.

As history repeats itself here, I respectfully step away from the conversation. You win. But wait...what about Attila the Hun? He didn't take any crap either.

We need a "flounce" smiley.

My interpretation of this situation is thus: Somebody annoyed Birdjaguar in another thread. He asked to have the thread split and nobody bothered providing context for anyone not already following the previous situation. This thread got derailed about as fast as the "Grandpa" thread did, and Birdjaguar, for some reason, is still annoyed that people are daring to disagree with him on whatever the original issue was. Then the shortest thread flounce in recent history happened.

I don't predict a rosy future for this thread, either.

You're not familiar with the echo chamber here?

It seems to me that Patine was expressing sarcasm.

 

[Estebonrober]

Patine has a habit of derailing threads onto his intense ocd about terminology in which he disagrees. Now often I find myself in agreement with him about labels and at least consider his mindfulness regarding labels and terms as an overall positive. BUT, he insists on being a total ass about it often and derails threads completely into his ocd pet peeves which is not fair and really sucks when you have an interesting conversation going such as we had in the "What to conservatives even stand for anymore?" thread in which multiple people took white ethnostate positions. Then when you challenge on it he calls you morally bankrupt or some such outrageous nonsense which kills conversation it does not encourage it.

So while I think digital lynching is a dramatic exaggeration that Patine himself, since his concern about accuracy is so intense, should not be labeling.

 

[ashendashin]

Patine has a habit of derailing threads onto his intense ocd about terminology in which he disagrees. Now often I find myself in agreement with him about labels and at least consider his mindfulness regarding labels and terms as an overall positive. BUT, he insists on being a total ass about it often and derails threads completely into his ocd pet peeves which is not fair and really sucks when you have an interesting conversation going such as we had in the "What to conservatives even stand for anymore?" thread in which multiple people took white ethnostate positions. Then when you challenge on it he calls you morally bankrupt or some such outrageous nonsense which kills conversation it does not encourage it.

So while I think digital lynching is a dramatic exaggeration that Patine himself, since his concern about accuracy is so intense, should not be labeling.

A huge part of the problem in OT is how eager users are to kick down or "ally" absolutely everyone. Even that conservative thread makes the mistake of acting as if a word describing a person's general approach to politics is some sort of nationwide unifying ideology. Patine's behavior is only a consequence of such from my point of view. But then I repeat myself.

 

[Estebonrober]

A huge part of the problem in OT is how eager users are to kick down or "ally" absolutely everyone. Even that conservative thread makes the mistake of acting as if a word describing a person's general approach to politics is some sort of nationwide unifying ideology. Patine's behavior is only a consequence of such from my point of view. But then I repeat myself.

Sure and I agree that its always a fair point, but derailing threads because of it is not fair to others either. We all speak in generalities at times. He seems to be unable to allow others to do so even when he is obviously guilty of it himself at times, usually in his outrage about people speaking in generalities. lol