The Clique, and other greivances

[Traitorfish]

There are, what, two active communists on here? And a few others who might just about qualify as fellow-travellers?

We're not exactly tripping over them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

To the rest, we're all the same, whether we identify as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, et al. The blasted dirty red scum!

 

[Camikaze]

Well, if we're going to class people as conservatives and liberals, I think 'others further to the left' is precise enough.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Certainly. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between how many of people of one identity others perceive there to be, versus how many people that group believes themselves to be.

 

[El_Machinae]

As formal leader of The Clique, I apologise for the harms they cause.

I swear, it's like herding kittens.

I find the dog-piling occurs when someone says something stereotypical and tired. Like, we've seen the same banal comment for years. Some people don't even get dog-piled, 'cause we're just not surprised they said the same thing again.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As formal leader of The Clique, I apologise for the harms they cause.

I swear, it's like herding kittens.

I find the dog-piling occurs when someone says something stereotypical and tired. Like, we've seen the same banal comment for years. Some people don't even get dog-piled, 'cause we're just not surprised they said the same thing again.

Even in the short time I've been around I recognized that there are people who will say the same utterly ridiculous thing over and over no matter what is said in response. Since they so clearly make no sense that even a one time lurker shooting through would most likely shrug them off I stopped pointing out their inanity. Id notice they are seldom dogpiled, so I assume most people do the same at least most of the time.

 

[MobBoss]

That's because to a conservative everyone else is a communist.

Not really, no.

Once upon a time the communists had the numbers.....

Maybe I'm just remembering the number from last year before left for a long while. I don't post enough now to really notice.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well it's not like conservatives don't have a history of seeing communists where there are none.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not enough conservatives around here to even create a dogpile. Never really has been.

It's been my experience that the conservatives that are here can be easily distracted into fighting each other over a sub-issue one-lined out there by a non-conservative.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think what cliques exist in CFC have a lot more to do with poster mentality than actually political views.

 

[MobBoss]

Well it's not like conservatives don't have a history of seeing communists where there are none.

I'm sure all conservatives are alike in that regard just like how all communists are alike, right comrade?

But really, that stopped with McCarthy and that lot some 50 odd years ago.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well it's not like conservatives don't have a history of seeing communists where there are none.

Reagan was anti-McCarthy.

This thread grew like a weed. Last I checked it was four posts.

The board does have a substantial leftward tilt. Anyone that thinks GW Bush is an extreme right winger is pretty extreme themselves. I don't know of a single Tea Party member or sympathizer that post in this forum, but they represent at least 20% of the population. In this thread there are 8-10 that are similarly far left.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Two posts in a row dogpiling on a commie. I thought we lacked conservatives on this forum.

 

[Zack]

I don't know of a single Tea Party member or sympathizer that post in this forum, but they represent at least 20% of the population

You have a source for this? Seems high.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You have a source for this? Seems high.

Was true, now not. Flash in the pan.

 

[choxorn]

You have a source for this? Seems high.

Probably pulled out of his arse or out of that post ATPG made a few years ago saying that no matter how insane something is, 1 out of 5 people would believe it.

Moderator Action: Please don't characterise other people's posts or claims in a rude manner.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[gay_Aleks]

Probably pulled out of his arse or out of that post ATPG made a few years ago saying that no matter how insane something is, 1 out of 5 people would believe it.

To be fair, he is right. He just needs to adjust the scale. 1 out of 50 000 makes much more sense.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm not being self-righteous and I resent the claim. I was making a rather simple point: the people who are most apt to whinge about being dog-piled on are on and the same people who like to claim that others are "[left wing] extremists" for opposing rather banal stuff like racism. That they get dog-piled isn't a function of anything more than the fact that the vast majority of OT posters find their expressed political views disgusting and that from time to time a small proportion of that silent majority get motivated enough to tell them their cranks. Some of us are more consistent in our mocking but we're scarcely lone voices in the wilderness.

You seem to be suggesting that all you and the others do is say, "Racism is bad," and then get attacked for it by despicable, "disgusting" racists. I haven't seen this happen. Where exactly are these posts? I can think of a few posters who might have made them, but they're not exactly popular, nor are they alone in their complaints about dogpiling and cliqueishness.

Some of the main criticisms of the clique are that it is hostile, confrontational, self-righteous, and tends to label its targets as racist bigots regardless of whether or not it fits the bill. As you said in the post quoted above, you consistently engage in mockery, you regularly use the word "disgusting" to describe any views you think your opponents hold that you don't like, and as you admitted, you usually rely on "muscle memory" to post rather than trying to figure out what views your opponents really hold. And as you stated above, you have a number of people who echo your mockery and who join you in dogpiling. You also like to respond to your opponents by putting words in their mouths, wrapping the words in quotation marks, and ending it with a mocking "honest!" This is one good example of your posting style.

I don't doubt that you don't see yourself as part of a clique, but can you see why people might?

In your defense, some of the posts you attacked did have some racist elements. And you do contribute more than pretty much anyone here to our knowledge of Eastern and Southeast Asian history, as well as to other types of history. People appreciate that, they really do. I learned a great deal about SE Asian history from you, and will have to do some reading on the hill societies and Malay seafaring sometime. So thanks for that.

It's just that you seem to have dealt with enough racism that you see racists everywhere, even where they're not, and because you're tired of and disgusted by racism, you tend to use unnecessary roughness in your attacks on suspected racists and other people who bother you. I understand, I'm getting pretty rough with people too, but we can't keep going like this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Reagan was anti-McCarthy.

I guess that's why he supported the purging of the Screen Actors' Guild of communists, then.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't say I have ever noticed a "clique" as such, but what I definitely have seen are many examples of actual points and arguments being ignored entirely, in favour of just assuming the poster is a racist/sexist/other bigot and then responding to that assumption rather than the actual words that were said. There are certain topics where certain people will only accept very narrowly-defined responses as being acceptable, and if anything outside these responses is given then the poster will just be automatically painted as an MRA, a holocaust denier, or something else of that ilk. Their actual point won't be addressed at all, and all sorts of unfounded assumptions about their personal and political beliefs will be made. It's usually the same people leaping to these assumptions time after time, which could give the appearance of a clique, but I don't think it is at all. And it's a trend that extends far beyond this board in the overly-politically correct.

I myself am generally quite left wing. I believe in equality for all, I don't believe in controlling anyone or telling them what to do so long as they are harming no-one else, I definitely have large socialist leanings etc. However, I've found myself being painted as some sort of right-wing, woman-hating bigot on a number of occasions on here, and it's usually the same people doing it (the latest was the accusation that I must either harbour a bitter resentment of all women, or that I am a sexual predator - an accusation that I might have found insulting if it hadn't come from someone who I have already filed in the "doesn't actually listen and makes false assumptions" category that I've just described). When I jump in on an argument it's usually over some small, specific, semantic point. I've even sometimes argued in support of a viewpoint I don't even share just because I see some of the criticisms being levelled against it being invalid or illogical. But as soon as I've "picked a side" like that, then it seems certain people immediately infer a whole ream of social and political beliefs about me that they assume anyone on that "side" must have, and then attack those traits mercilessly whilst not engaging with any of the words said. It does get tiring.

But is there a clique? Not that I've noticed.