On the Tyranny of the Majority in posting on a Left-leaning forum:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,478
5,033
126
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority on a left leaning forum is a tyrany properly to be seen as a vulgarity and to be dreaded, acting as it does through the authoritative assumption of its posters. But reflecting persons perceived that when a forum's majority is itself the tyrant collectively, over the separate individuals who post in it, its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do via the quality of posts therein by political pundits. A virtual society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the majority opinion is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of that prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of forum members to impose, by other means than social stigmatization, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

But though this proposition, one might hope, is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit, how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control, is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to anyone, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. What these rules should be, is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving. No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, much less political forums have decided it alike; and the decision of one age or country is a wonder to another. Yet the people of any given age and country no more suspect any difficulty in it, than if it were a subject on which mankind had always been agreed. The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of customary forum decorum which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in whaever creed to which he or she may aspire; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason, at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their anti-social ones, their envy or jealousy, their arrogance or contemptuousness: but most commonly, their desires or fears for themselves, their legitimate or illegitimate self-interest. Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority. The morality between Spartans and Helots, between slave owners and Blacks, between princes and subjects, between nobles and roturiers, between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and feelings: and the sentiments thus generated, react in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations among themselves. Where, on the other hand, a class, formerly ascendant, has lost its ascendancy, or where its ascendancy is unpopular, the prevailing moral sentiments frequently bear the impress of an impatient dislike of superiority. Another grand determining principle of the rules of conduct, both in act and forbearance, which have been enforced by law or opinion, has been the servility of mankind towards the supposed preferences or aversions of their temporal masters, or of their gods. This servility, though essentially selfish, is not hypocrisy; it gives rise to perfectly genuine sentiments of abhorrence; it made men burn magicians and heretics. Among so many baser influences, the general and obvious interests of society have of course had a share, and a large one, in the direction of the moral sentiments: less, however, as a matter of reason, and on their own account, than as a consequence of the sympathies and antipathies which grew out of them: and sympathies and antipathies which had little or nothing to do with the interests of society, have made themselves felt in the establishment of moralities with quite as great force.

A heads up on this matter, I suspect, will have little effect. Most of the capacity for serious mentation tire the brain of the average forum dweller after a few words. TLDR and, of course, delivered with great sugness and self pride. :)

Edit: Smugness and Self Pride as I am sure you realized.
 
Last edited:

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
16,563
2,053
126
I think you have started the wrong place. I'm not American, and while it seems like you have taken this to the extreme it is a problem for all democracies: How to keep political corruption in check, how to separate the political and the juridical system and create public political culture where you can debate politics instead of corrupt politicians and conspiracy theories. This forum is just a mirror of what is happening everywhere.

If you want a debate where your opinions are being taken seriously, then you also need to be ready to listen to and reason with the arguments. Most people enter a debate because they want to voice their opinion, but maybe they should rather join a debate because they would like to understand their opponents.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
25,412
32,113
136
I’m against all forms of tyranny including the tyranny of a wall of text made especially hard to read with psychoanalysis. I usually try to read your posts and try to understand your pov, this one will take a while and a few tokes, and I’m in a dry country atm
 
Mar 11, 2004
22,052
4,342
136
People who have regularly shown a willingness to disregard not just other opinions but objective reality, like you have done repeatedly, OP, should not complain when they are given the same level of discourse in return.

You've been a bloviating blowhard on here the entire time I've been aware of you. Literally from the start my awareness of you was other people making jokes about that aspect of you, where you just blather on about nonsensical thought while trying to portray yourself as the one true arbiter of truth and knowledge, when all you offer is either so obvious or so nonsensical that it didn't need to be stated or has nothing to do with anything but your own personal headspace.

But you've revealed the truth about yourself enough on here that we can see who you are. Just another full of shit right winger that wants to now absolve themself of the sins they've enabled and continue to enable (because goddamnit you need your guns). Sure, you've now become aware of just how outright evil that ideology is, but its so deeply ingrained that you can't help but try and blame everyone else for your own personal shortcomings, since that is the way of right wingers.

Eat shit. Fuck off. There's already more than enough threads you've made whining about people shitting on your crapass posts. Either actually offer something worthwhile or STFU.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,478
5,033
126
I think you have started the wrong place. I'm not American, and while it seems like you have taken this to the extreme it is a problem for all democracies: How to keep political corruption in check, how to separate the political and the juridical system and create public political culture where you can debate politics instead of corrupt politicians and conspiracy theories. This forum is just a mirror of what is happening everywhere.

If you want a debate where your opinions are being taken seriously, then you also need to be ready to listen to and reason with the arguments. Most people enter a debate because they want to voice their opinion, but maybe they should rather join a debate because they would like to understand their opponents.
Thanks for the reply. I find your posts to be different and interesting. I am not sure what you mean by I have started the wrong place but it is definitely a problem for all democracies and that the forum is a mirror of what is out there. I agree that if you want to be heard you have to listen but I have to ask if you are making a statement or suggesting that I don't. I am, I believe, trying to say what I see regarding how we create opponents out of inner conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,478
5,033
126
I’m against all forms of tyranny including the tyranny of a wall of text made especially hard to read with psychoanalysis. I usually try to read your posts and try to understand your pov, this one will take a while and a few tokes, and I’m in a dry country atm
Psychoanalysis was invented circa 1890's. I see nothing I said there that couldn't have been written pre-civil war by someone of rank genius. However I do appreciate your willingness to give it some thought. I have a feeling that unlike today with exceptions like yourself, if it had been written back then it would likely have gotten a much better reception then it did here today.
People who have regularly shown a willingness to disregard not just other opinions but objective reality, like you have done repeatedly, OP, should not complain when they are given the same level of discourse in return.

You've been a bloviating blowhard on here the entire time I've been aware of you. Literally from the start my awareness of you was other people making jokes about that aspect of you, where you just blather on about nonsensical thought while trying to portray yourself as the one true arbiter of truth and knowledge, when all you offer is either so obvious or so nonsensical that it didn't need to be stated or has nothing to do with anything but your own personal headspace.

But you've revealed the truth about yourself enough on here that we can see who you are. Just another full of shit right winger that wants to now absolve themself of the sins they've enabled and continue to enable (because goddamnit you need your guns). Sure, you've now become aware of just how outright evil that ideology is, but its so deeply ingrained that you can't help but try and blame everyone else for your own personal shortcomings, since that is the way of right wingers.

Eat shit. Fuck off. There's already more than enough threads you've made whining about people shitting on your crapass posts. Either actually offer something worthwhile or STFU.
What was wrong with my post. I thought it right on. For somebody who is profoundly critical of others you don't offer much in the way of reasoned critique.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
25,412
32,113
136
Psychoanalysis was invented circa 1890's. I see nothing I said there that couldn't have been written pre-civil war by someone of rank genius. However I do appreciate your willingness to give it some thought. I have a feeling that unlike today with exceptions like yourself, if it had been written back then it would likely have gotten a much better reception then it did here today.
that was way easier to read and understand than your initial rambling post that could have been summarized more effectively with less words
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,478
5,033
126
that was way easier to read and understand than your initial rambling post that could have been summarized more effectively with less words
Perhaps, but then I only intended in the post you preferred to make a much simpler point about psychoanalysis. In the OP there was an attempt to address a far more complicated notion in greater depth and sophistication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,971
11,604
136
Well, I suppose I see your point, but the thing is, I've been posting on P&N since 2008 (originally as woolfe9999), and I've frequently gone way against the grain of majority opinion here. I've often criticized the far left's "woke" identity politics as both logically and factually wrong, and as politically damaging to the left. I've disagreed about many police shootings. I've given the scientific facts about e-cigs in spite of most people apparently believing the media's nonsense about them. And many, many other things.

Why have I never been afraid to express those opinions here? Why do I not feel tyrannized by the majority? Perhaps if I was a Trump supporter I'd feel differently, but then again, if I was a Trump supporter, I'd be deeply delusional and dead wrong about almost everything, and hence would probably deserve all the name calling I received.

Oh, and one pro-tip: if you are going to write that many words, you need to use more paragraph breaks. It makes long posts much easier to read.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,916
4,664
136
Overtime, I've found that when people use certain keywords and phrases that the content is going to be a waste of time. "Tyranny" is one of those phrases.
Combine that with someone who is chronically overly verbose along with some "personality quirks".

For those who look upon this wall of text and wonder "Should I read it"
Depends on how bored you are and how much empathy you have for people.

TLDR; Whamubulance called because sometimes people get shut down by others on the forum during a mob rule session.
My guess is that Moonbeam said something (probably using 70000 redundant words in a block of text most people will use as an excuse to search for a hidden Rick Roll) in another thread and some of the regulars said "Nah bruh"
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,022
10,921
126
I have always been center right. My posting history here proves that.

32235665_10215275697821323_4736069117428105216_n.jpg

That is my political compass. The ONLY reason ANYONE would think I'm "left-wing" is because they're so far to the upper right everything left of Hitler is left wing to them.

The right-wing went full batshit during Obama.

I only appear "left" because the center has been pulled so far right it's pathetic. There is NO far left in America anymore. A far left would be actively calling for the nationalization of the means of production. There isn't a single mainstream left winger who does that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY