Socialization, insults and clicks.

[nutronjon]

This is what Nitack had to say:

 

Has anyone else ever read a statement that was so hypocritical it is sad before? Just to know that the person is so out of touch with reality and deluded that you actually feel sorry for them?

 

You are also so wrong it is RIDICULOUS. We live in a representative democracy. I am unsure how many times I will have to explain this concept for you, but I am starting to doubt you will ever actually understand it. Unless you are an elected official you have ZERO say in the direct governing of your country, state, or community (limited exceptions in certain states, however even those options require you to VOTE). Only by voting do you exercise your part in the process. If you chose not to vote then you chose to abdicate any power you have. Go ahead and give money, write letters to the editor, testify where ever you want, but an elected official can completely ignore all of those activities and it will make no difference. Only by voting, or running for office yourself, can you actually take an active part in your countries government.

 

For all of you who warned me in private messages to not even engage this nutjob, you were right and I should have listened. Government and the rights of the people are passionate topics for me and it kills me to see such misinformation and propaganda posted here. However, I have learned my lesson and will ignore the troll.

 

I had to ask myself, why someone would deliberately go out of his way to say something that he had to know would be very hurtful, and it dawned in me this is how high schoolers behavior. To be popular, we had to had to dislike dislike our parents, and disrespect teachers. Making them look like a complete idiots was really cool and away to be popular.

 

High schoolers are also known for forming clicks or joining gangs, and beating up on others, either with verbal attacks or physically. This is similar to the e pecking order of chickens. It is a cruel behavior that determines social position, and means no one picks on the top guy, as others will come to his defense if this happens, and everyone picks on the bottom guy. Nitack is new to the forum, and needs to establish his social position, and of course wants to be associated with the people who appear the most popular, and has chosen to this by attacking the person he thinks is the least popular, to please the ones he believes are the most popular. Or at least, that is the answer that came to mind, when I asked why he would ignore the subject and just viciously attack me, and let everyone know he was inspired to do this by a PM. I have been wondering why people behave like this my whole life and I am really happy that I have finally figured it out. ;)

 

When I report someone for being insulting, I express concern that the forum not be characterized by this unpleasant behavior and turn away more mature and well informed people. I also say, I rather this person not be hurt, but has help in learning better social manners. And I have said, I am concerned for our civilization if our young do not learn better, and become adults who know no better. As some pointed out what happened when Katrina hit was shocking. Yes, some people were heros, but many acted like frighten animals. First we socialize the child, then the forums, then the country, then the world.

 

I also want to say, females have often responded to the hurtful socialization, by imitating the males and taking pride in being slayers. We did not liberate women during, Women's Liberation, but made it taboo to be feminine. Today insulting people and attacking them, is a better way to be popular, than being refined and civil. This is the flip side of what our democracy once was.

[Thunderbird]

This is what Nitack had to say:You are also so wrong it is RIDICULOUS. We live in a representative democracy. I am unsure how many times I will have to explain this concept for you, but I am starting to doubt you will ever actually understand it. Unless you are an elected official you have ZERO say in the direct governing of your country, state, or community (limited exceptions in certain states, however even those options require you to VOTE). Only by voting do you exercise your part in the process. If you chose not to vote then you chose to abdicate any power you have. Go ahead and give money, write letters to the editor, testify where ever you want, but an elected official can completely ignore all of those activities and it will make no difference. Only by voting, or running for office yourself, can you actually take an active part in your countries government.

 

I am afraid Nitnak is the one that is uninformed.

 

I have taken a course in lobbying, the went to the state capital set up an ice cream table in the rotunda, waited for reps to break from a voting session and served ice cream and ask for support in my endeavoring to improve our community in the reentry process, which I got though action. You do not have to go to this extent however if you are involved in the community make your self known and it can be as easy as stopping by your reps office and leaving a message or making an appointment or inviting them to one of you‘re own.

[GAHD]

...Nitack is new to the forum, and needs to establish his social position, and of course wants to be associated with the people who appear the most popular, and has chosen to this by attacking the person he thinks is the least popular, to please the ones he believes are the most popular. Or at least, that is the answer that came to mind, when I asked why he would ignore the subject and just viciously attack me, and let everyone know he was inspired to do this by a PM.... Today insulting people and attacking them, is a better way to be popular, than being refined and civil. This is the flip side of what our democracy once was.

Nj, Nitak certainly went a little far with the "nutjob' comment, The report has been received and when the staff reaches concensus we will take appropriate action.

 

To address the rest; You do know why politics and religion are not "dinnertable" conversations, right?

what does "katrina" have to do with anything?

 

I hope you two can work out your differences, though I think a private message exchange might have been a better way to go about that.

 

I am afraid Nitnak is the one that is uninformed.

 

I have taken a course in lobbying, the went to the state capital set up an ice cream table in the rotunda, waited for reps to break from a voting session and served ice cream and ask for support in my endeavoring to improve our community in the reentry process, which I got though action. You do not have to go to this extent however if you are involved in the community make your self known and it can be as easy as stopping by your reps office and leaving a message or making an appointment or inviting them to one of you‘re own.

To be clear you gave them something then attempted to influence them; you BRIBED them.

 

That is not democratic, that is representative republic. It's a small difference but it's an important one.

[Nitack]

I am afraid Nitnak is the one that is uninformed.

 

I have taken a course in lobbying, the went to the state capital set up an ice cream table in the rotunda, waited for reps to break from a voting session and served ice cream and ask for support in my endeavoring to improve our community in the reentry process, which I got though action. You do not have to go to this extent however if you are involved in the community make your self known and it can be as easy as stopping by your reps office and leaving a message or making an appointment or inviting them to one of you‘re own.

 

Thunder, I am sure your course in lobbying was informative, however I am actually a LOBBYIST by profession. Federally registered, the whole shebang. My BA is in American Government from George Mason University and I visit Capitol hill at least twice a month to talk with legislative staff. I am correct in what I have posted.

 

Your ice cream table was effective because you let your representative know your opinion and they wanted to ensure that you knew they listened to you. By being responsive to the will of their constituents they hope to get your VOTE. The only recourse you have if you don't agree with how your legislator acts is to VOTE.

 

Please read the entire thread to fully understand the points that were being discussed. http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/15541-consensus-politics.html

[Nitack]

Nj certainly went a little far with the "nutjob' comment, The report has been received and when the staff reaches concensus we will take appropriate action.

 

To address the rest; You do know why politics and religion are not "dinnertable" conversations, right?

what does "katrina" have to do with anything?

 

I hope you two can work out your differences, though I think a private message exchange might have been a better way to go about that.

 

To clarify, there was a very good discussion going on about government, which a number of us were enjoying. The nutjob comment might have been a bit far, I concede. It was in response to multiple attempts to derail our discussion into some kind of alternative religious theory discussion. Bud don't worry, I have learned my lesson and just ignore the trolls now ;)

[freeztar]

I have learned my lesson and just ignore the trolls now ;)

 

You are very wise and serve as a good example to others. :doh:

[Thunderbird]

Thunder, I am sure your course in lobbying was informative, however I am actually a LOBBYIST by profession. Federally registered, the whole shebang. My BA is in American Government from George Mason University and I visit Capitol hill at least twice a month to talk with legislative staff. I am correct in what I have posted.

 

Your ice cream table was effective because you let your representative know your opinion and they wanted to ensure that you knew they listened to you. By being responsive to the will of their constituents they hope to get your VOTE. The only recourse you have if you don't agree with how your legislator acts is to VOTE.

 

Please read the entire thread to fully understand the points that were being discussed. http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/15541-consensus-politics.html

Well also because I knew ahead of time that she was behind the programs, and was actually interisted in what was taking place within the community partnerships. You did leave out lobbying in you're list of way's to influence government, why ? seems strange that you left that out considering you are one, and as you well know anyone can do this. What do you lobby for?

[Thunderbird]

Nj, Nitak certainly went a little far with the "nutjob' comment, The report has been received and when the staff reaches concensus we will take appropriate action.

 

To address the rest; You do know why politics and religion are not "dinnertable" conversations, right?

what does "katrina" have to do with anything?

 

I hope you two can work out your differences, though I think a private message exchange might have been a better way to go about that.

 

 

To be clear you gave them something then attempted to influence them; you BRIBED them.

 

That is not democratic, that is representative republic. It's a small difference but it's an important one.

If you could Actually bribe a elected official with a bowl of cheap ice cream you would have a point.

[InfiniteNow]

If you could Actually bribe a elected official with a bowl of cheap ice cream you would have a point.

 

And why couldn't one successfully bribe an elected official with a bowl of ice cream?

 

You have failed to prove that such an attempt would fail, and have relied on an appeal to improbability to suggest that it's not possible.

 

 

Regardless, we're both off-topic. This thread is about nutronjon getting upset because holes were poked in her posts and she didn't like how it made her feel.

[Thunderbird]

And why couldn't one successfully bribe an elected official with a bowl of ice cream?

 

You have failed to prove that such an attempt would fail, and have relied on an appeal to improbability to suggest that it's not possible.

 

Influence is the proper word, not bribe. One is legal, the other is not. If I was giving away ice cream company stocks that would be a bribe. Offering someone a bowl of ice cream and a chat is called an ice cream social.

[jackson33]

IMO legally; If the ice cream was offered to anyone and free, the representative was perfectly legal in taking the offered item. If there were signing indicated a specific purpose and the rep took, there were no laws broken at that time. The vendor then a lobbyist did no wrong. Technically the representative was liable to report the gift only. On a State level each has a different value to establish what can be the gift, usually a whole lot more than ice cream...

 

Lobbyist, on the national stage, are the best source for individuals to access the Federal Government. Whether a farmer, small business person, an old person or any number of specific oriented interest. A ten or 100 dollar donation to an organization is a whole lot cheaper than a visit to Washington DC, where you might receive an audience.

 

Off topic??? I suppose, but the first response has generated this discussion, claiming the a previous a POST by a person, signified a disingenuous attitude toward him/her. The issue, then that persons persanna...

[nutronjon]

Does anyone have anything to say about the social pressures to behave in a particular way?

 

The remark about Katrina was a remark about socialization. When people do not have human values, and are okay with attacking others verbally or physcially, the expected result is what? Increased popularity and good bonding? Well yes, sometimes it means increased popularity and good bonding, but it is at the expense of another. A group of people acted terribly during the Katrina crisis because they were poorly socialized and intentionally victimized people. What is to prevent people from being abusive when this is a good way to gain popularity and bond? What could be the expected result of more people being abusive than helpful, when situations like Katrina hit?

 

And Gawd, it was really the socail behavior phenonemia I wanted to discuss. Man, I remember so many times when I was suppose to dislike someone, because someone in the in crowd said so. Popularity just wasn't that important to me, so I never went along with the program. Am I the only one who identifies this social behavior and objects to it?

[InfiniteNow]

Nutronjon,

 

Your base of knowledge will very likely expand if you take a few moments and read through this really good article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?ref=technology

[jackson33]

Does anyone have anything to say about the social pressures to behave in a particular way?

 

The remark about Katrina was a remark about socialization. When people do not have human values, and are okay with attacking others verbally or physcially, the expected result is what? Increased popularity and good bonding? Well yes, sometimes it means increased popularity and good bonding, but it is at the expense of another. A group of people acted terribly during the Katrina crisis because they were poorly socialized and intentionally victimized people. What is to prevent people from being abusive when this is a good way to gain popularity and bond? What could be the expected result of more people being abusive than helpful, when situations like Katrina hit?

 

And Gawd, it was really the socail behavior phenonemia I wanted to discuss. Man, I remember so many times when I was suppose to dislike someone, because someone in the in crowd said so. Popularity just wasn't that important to me, so I never went along with the program. Am I the only one who identifies this social behavior and objects to it?

 

Katrina, the hurricane effected a great deal of people from Alabama to just east of New Orleans. A result of rainfall primarily caused the flooding and problems in New Orleans. It had appeared the hurricane would pass east of NO and it did, so mandated evacuations where never ordered. Although the breach of levy was predictable, the extent was probably more than expected.

 

I don't think abusive out ranked helpful, in the slightest. As I recall, half the ninth ward had not left (for what ever reason) and hundreds of individuals and organizations did what possible to get those folks to higher ground. Truck loads of goods, were sent out from places around the country and governments reacted according to their limitation. Efforts on behalf of an economically depressed area were equal or more, to anything I know of before or after, including some rather massive nid-west flooding, this year.

 

What you may be talking about 'Social Reaction' may be in this years Election and the candidates. A well known woman (Clinton) was apparently beaten by an unknown freshman senator, that happens to be black and have a strange name, if only to us.

 

If I am off track, please give another example of where social pressures make a society act in a particular way...than Katrina.

[nutronjon]

Thank you for treating this thread seriously and giving it some thought. I used the wrong word. I should have said clique instead of click. The following is what Wikipedia had to say about cliques.

 

According to some sociologists, one reason for the formation of a clique relates to the desire of individuals to compare themselves with others who are of the same social status.[2] Another word for clique is reference group, or a group of individuals which is used as a standard by which to evaluate attitudes, abilities, or current situations.[3] A clique as a reference group can be either normative or comparative.

 

A normative clique or reference group is the source of values and beliefs for the individual. The comparative clique or reference group is a standard of comparison by which individuals evaluate themselves and others.[4] Individuals of a clique can view other individuals in their clique as the norm, while they tend to use other status groups or cliques as a frame of reference by which they compare themselves. Thus, cliques are formed in order for people to join with other individuals and establish a norm based on values, characteristics, or common interests, and to also use other groups of people as a frame of comparison for themselves.

 

A clique can exist in the workplace, in a community, in the classroom, in a business, or any other area of social interaction. Cliques tend to form within the boundaries of a larger group where opportunities to interact are great.[5] Cliques are often associated with children and teenagers in a classroom setting. Schools are a prime place where peer network exist and can easily be accentuated through the differentiation of various cliques, and through the processes of inclusion and exclusion that characterize a clique.[6]

 

I don't think cliques are so different from gangs, on the level of why people try to belong and their willingness to please those they want to be accepted by. I think the bad things that happened during Katrina could have been something more like gang behavior. The concern is that when we are vulnerable these subcultural groups can cause a problem, and I wonder how far some people are from these subcultural groups. Some people think if things get bad enough, we will stop being so civil. I feel better to read an argument saying most of us are good people.

 

I have also asked, perhaps insulting people and deliberately hurting them is part of this clique behavior of inclusion and exclusion. I began with an insulting post that got me to thinking about why someone would deliberately be so hurtful, and this behavior was instigated by InfiniteNow who backs it up with his post including a link to a picture of a troll, which goes nicely his picture of ostrige sticking its head in the ground, and so on. This insulting behavior is done with purpose, and I think it is related to clique behavior, a desire to be included and have social status.

 

We have this curious element among us that attributes belonging and social status to being cruel to others. Come to think of it, last night during the Bill Moyer's Journal he told about the head guy in Alaska who was a member of the Mean Son of Bitches Club and knee deep in corrupt politics. Bill Moyer gave several examples of terrible human beings in high places, freely expressing their contempt for other human beings, as though this is a good way to get social acceptence and social status. Isn't Bush one of these guys? InfiniteNow isn't in the same legal as Bush, but there is an element in society that playes by some pretty mean rules, and there is a lot of toleration for this. What do you?

[InfiniteNow]

I have also asked, perhaps insulting people and deliberately hurting them is part of this clique behavior of inclusion and exclusion. I began with an insulting post that got me to thinking about why someone would deliberately be so hurtful, and this behavior was instigated by InfiniteNow who backs it up with his post including a link to a picture of a troll, which goes nicely his picture of ostrige sticking its head in the ground, and so on. This insulting behavior is done with purpose

 

Ohhh...nutronjon. <sigh>

 

My response above was a very serious contribution to your question, and had you actually read the article to which I linked, and not just looked at the photo at the beginning of it, you would realize this.

 

<sigh>

 

 

This particular issue has nothing to do with cliques, and everything to do with miscommunication and misperception. The article is an exploration of why people behave the way they do in an online community, and how many more people in today's internet based social community are looking to weed out the weak from their social collective. It's about proving your strength and being ostracized when you cannot. This is, however, just my own personal summary of the article, and I'm sure you would come away with other insights.

 

I encourage you to give it a read.

[modest]

I agree.

 

Nutronjon, I just read the article INow links. It is a very good New York Times exposé on just what you're discussing.

 

~modest