
Herd Mentality - tomhoward
http://quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd-mentality/
======
golergka
> As a lifelong supporter of social justice, the new wave of “social justice
> warriors” and their denunciation of healthy debate has come as a horrifying
> shock to me. Until recently, I believed that the fight for equality would
> herald a new age of empathy, diversity and understanding. Instead, many of
> my previously liberal allies have been taken over by the cult of victimhood
> and a collective fear of rejection. Like teenagers, they constantly check in
> with each other to affirm whether what they think is acceptable – and who
> can blame them? The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the
> tribe.

Seriously, latest season of South Park seems the best depiction of this
phenomenon that I've seen so far.

~~~
venomsnake
It is mostly signaling + one upping each other.

But they managed to turn me from moderate liberal (in the EU sense, I guess I
am raving socialist by US) to complete nihilist. I want to see Trump elected
just to piss them off.

~~~
golergka
Labels are stupid anyway.

I got detained by police on a demonstrations in support of gay rights and
democratic elections. But at the same time, I believe that flat tax (not flat
tax rate as in % of income, but flat tax as in constant amount of money per
month) is the most just form of taxation. Not even remotely feasible, of
course, and it would be very stupid to even try to implement it, but still,
the most just in theory.

Now — does it make me left or right?

~~~
js8
> Now — does it make me left or right?

I think it makes you confused. :-) Which is an OK state to be in, and it's up
to you if you want to change that. Let me explain.

I think left vs right means how much you care about people when it comes to
their relative power and social status in society. If you don't like power
inequality, then you're on the left. If you enjoy it or are indifferent to it,
then you're on the right.

Now democracy is a distinctly leftist concept, because it explicitly gives
everybody the same political power. Gay rights, well, it's a little aside from
this classification but basically equal rights for everybody is in the same
ballpark (that's why most equal rights movements are considered leftist).

On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that
money do not influence power relationships in society. Which is AFAICT
empirically false. I do however think that you can recognize flat tax as being
just under that assumption.

You do seem to care about distribution of power in society, which makes you
leftist. So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that
income has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit
personal freedom of other people)?

~~~
golergka
> I think left vs right means how much you care about people when it comes to
> their relative power and social status in society. If you don't like power
> inequality, then you're on the left. If you enjoy it or are indifferent to
> it, then you're on the right.

So, you not only think that there's a universal definition of left vs right in
politics but also that it's all about one single problem?

> On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that
> money do not influence power relationships in society.

I don't support flat tax, it would be an insane and idiotic idea.

I just think it's the most fair and just tax scheme. But I don't even remotely
support it.

> So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that income
> has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit
> personal freedom of other people)?

You intertwined a lot of very complicated issues with your comment. First of
all:

1) Power inequality is not good or bad; it's too broad of a definition. In
order to attach moral value to it, you have to look at a concrete example in
context, not an abstract concept.

For example, I think you would prefer for a few of leading climate scientist
to have more power over environmental policy than of people who don't believe
in evolution, right? But this is power inequality, too.

2) Taxes are, in theoretically just world, should be a form of payment for
government services. Government is an entity that provides us with invaluable
services like justice system and other perks, from certification of medication
to protection from foreign threats. It's good stuff, worth paying for. But in
theory, I don't see any moral reasons for some people to pay more for these
services than others.

You, on the other hand, want to use taxes as a tool to solve power inequality,
because you decided that it's a bad thing. Not only this decision is rather
strange (as I already discussed in point 1), but you're using a hack to
implement a unrelated requirement with the help of a feature that was
implemented for completely different reason. Once again, _in theory_ this
makes no sense at all.

3) And finally, when you involve terms like "personal freedom" into equation,
I can almost guarantee that we will end up arguing about what "personal
freedom" really is, where it starts and where it ends, and will not able to
come to a conclusion.

However.

You might have guessed that I separate the political theory of what just and
what is not from political reality. In political reality that we have,
democracy did not appear because of theoretical considerations of what is the
best form of government: it evolved as a compromise between different parties
who would've otherwise kill each other to determine who's right. So were the
taxes. And our discussions about what is good and bad, in theory, have very
little dent on reality, which is shaped by power struggles of millions of
people acting of their self-interest; all we can hope to achieve is to solve
these conflicts in the most peaceful way possible. Trying to construct the
perfect government system out of theoretical considerations is futile if
you're lucky, and if you're not, you get North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

~~~
venomsnake
> But in theory, I don't see any moral reasons for some people to pay more for
> these services than others.

If you have more property, you should pay more for protecting said property.
So while life and limb protection should cost the same, property protection
should be payed by people that actually have property.

~~~
golergka
Huh, that's a really interesting argument. I would love to come up with a
counter-argument, but I'll have to think about it for a while. Thanks.

------
edent
There is a nasty nest of people who seem to relish in the pain and suffering
that they cause.

It is not an intellectually stimulating activity - it doesn't further any
particular ideological cause, and I find it extremely troubling. Last night a
friend of mine was set upon by a group of (self-declared) Libertarians for
having the temerity to tweet about being disabled.

I can't quite get into the mindset of the people who harass others online. Is
it juvenile lashing out? The uncontrolled rage of the impotent? Or people who
get a sadistic thrill from detached torture?

~~~
tomhoward
I understand this question is examined in Jon Ronson's recent book _So You 've
Been Publicly Shamed_[1]

I haven't read it but I've heard him discussing it on The Nerdist[2] and The
Joe Rogan Experience[3] podcasts, both of which were very entertaining and
insightful.

Though I never stooped to the level of harassing and shaming people, I did go
through an _angry white male libertarian_ stage, and having been through that
I think the underlying motive for the asshole behaviour is something to do
with entitlement and resentment. I.e., "I deserve better than this (more
money/status/respect/sex etc), if the world's not gonna give me what I
deserve, then at least I can make other people as miserable as I am".

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed)

[2] [http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-
ronson/](http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/)

[3]
[http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1](http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1)

~~~
mjklin
Sartre remarked on the pleasure one gets out of this type of behavior:

"I was, as it were, doubled. On the one hand, I was 'I'; Jean-Paul Sartre, you
know, the person. On the other hand I was the chronicler of hell, the
privileged young writer allowed to observe all the torments of the modern
personality. I was extremely happy, fake and hoodwinked to my very soul"

\- From his autobiography _Les Mots_

------
bootload
_" At its worst, it gives us mindless thuggery, the kind of collective
violence exemplified and explored in Golding’s Lord of the Flies."_

There's a reason kids are made to read/watch this book in school. The author
was an English Master at Bishops [0] while he wrote this book. That's why it
rings true. First hand knowledge of the pecking order and the herd in action.

 _" The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe."_

Excommunication is dangerous because it can result in death.

[0] UK, COE Grammer, Salisbury, Wiltshire.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Not...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Notable_staff)

------
mmaunder
So this feels relevant. I spotted this piece in this morning's NYTimes front
page:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-
your-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-sisters-
boyfriend-is-gay.html?_r=0)

"My sister has been dating her boyfriend for two years. They live together and
seem mostly happy. And I am happy for them, except for one thing: I am about
99 percent sure he is gay. Now, I have no problem with homosexuality, but you
can understand my concern. Also, I am not the only one who thinks this.
Several male friends have told me that he has tried to kiss other men or grab
their crotches. I would like to bring this up with my sister. How should I do
it?

Michelle, New York"

The response:

"Request denied! Before you say anything hurtful to your sister, let’s take a
peek at some of the (homophobic-adjacent) assumptions that you’ve made on your
(probably well-intentioned) road to judgment. Your 99 percent certainty rests
on unknown evidence. (Spare me your gaydar.) But I am willing to bet that much
of it involves silly stereotypes about masculinity. Is the boyfriend
effeminate? Does he follow fashion or musical theater? News flash: He can
still be straight."

"More problematic is the “gay panic” of your male friends, whose gossipy
stories may rely on secondhand reports from still other men. Not so reliable.
What’s more, I don’t buy it. Gay men and lesbians have long been, and often
still are, a persecuted minority. (Have you seen the excellent film “Carol”
yet?) The idea that a gay man could blithely and repeatedly “grab the
crotches” of his straight cohorts is absurd. There would be consequences."

This story was linked on the front page of the NY Times this morning. I may be
completely uncalibrated and out of touch with modern values and sensitivities.
But I don't think I am. So I'm curious: Does anyone else see anything a little
odd about this piece?

~~~
pappyo
It's odd because someone is looking for advice and in return were shamed.
Being concerned for one's sister is not a shamable offence...yet...uhh...check
your privilege or some such.

Funny enough, the slogan "Check Your Privilege" has come full circle and
become the battle cry of the Social Justice Warrior, alienating all that are
on the receiving end of its blow. Whereas its original intent was to help the
receiver do some contextual introspection.

~~~
aninhumer
Moreover, they were shamed for things the writer assumed about their evidence,
while dismissing the actual stated evidence as implausible.

There is some good advice here: Consider carefully whether your belief that
they're gay isn't based on homophobic assumptions. But rather than frame it
like that, they are instead assumed to have already made these assumptions,
and berated for them.

------
IsaacL
_Recently, I have found myself drawn to a range of people who describe
themselves or are described by others as “libertarians” – only to find once
again that there’s a hymn sheet of horrors that many seem to sing from._

 _[...] Another commonly displayed “libertarian” approach that I struggle to
respect is the puerile desire to offend, bolstered by the dubious claim that
this is somehow a noble and worthwhile antidote to the equally tedious culture
of taking offence._

 _[...] There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone’s personal liberty is
furthered by such infantile sneering; yet swarms of supposedly liberal
followers rejoice in this toxic effluence with excited applause, like an
encouraging mother will celebrate her toddler’s first shit in the potty._

I long had libertarian-ish leanings, but I agree with the author's points
above. By coincidence, in another tab I was just reading "The Fable of the
Cardiac Surgeon or Why I Don’t Support Libertarian Organizations" \-
[http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663](http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663).
It's an interesting read for those of similar mind.

~~~
smoyer
I also conceptually like the idea of libertarianism, but recognize that it's
an impossible form of society and you can't really create a government around
it. What I recommend to everyone is that they go around trying to be a
libertarian - respect everyone else's rights like they'd like their own to be
respected.

With regard to the author's interaction with a "pack" of libertarians - you
can find quite a few of groups but they rarely agree with each other.

~~~
asift
>you can't really create a government around it

You say that as if it's a bug and not a feature...

In all seriousness, I'm not sure I understand your claim that it's an
impossible form of society. I understand the argument that the US or other
existing nation states aren't going to become libertarian societies, but I see
no theoretical reason why the creation of such a society is impossible
(particularly when sea and space colonies start opening up new frontiers). I
think this Startup School presentation by Balaji Srinavasan is relevant:
[https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A](https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A)

~~~
smoyer
I didn't mean to make it sound that way - I think it's a feature. Many of the
libertarian groups don't seem to recognize this and are proposing we try to
create Xanadu (and I don't mean Ted Nelson's product - it's more likely to
exist).

I agree that these societies could exist outside of a formal government -
they'd need the ability to evict people which probably means everyone would
need citizenship elsewhere.

------
tobbyb
There a particular personality that is given to self righteousness and
imposing on others, and these self appointed arbiters quickly attach to these
causes and use them to police other people, nevermind the cause. The internet
has made this kind of self righteous mob effortless, and they feed off each
other making justice or the original cause completely secondary to their own
need to impose their views.

Civilized society depends on the rule of law. There is a large mechanism in
place in any civilized society with an extensive process to first decide guilt
and then give the guilty an opportunity to pay the price, reform and try
again. This by definition rules out arbitrary individual perceptions of
justice or injustice, discrimination or organizing to 'directly' deliver it,
to prevent anarchy. Justice by definition cannot empower some arbitrary
individuals or groups views over others.

Activism targets laws or injustice based on reason and not individuals. The
objective is not to shame or deliver consequences for an individual but change
the law. Self righteous mobs on the other hand driven by their own opinions
and the need to impose their views, rather than justice, target individuals.

Discrimination is illegal and has a huge social, personal, and professional
consequences. If an individual escapes that somehow it indicates a flaw in the
rule of law which activism would target, not the individual. But that's not
fulfilling for those driven by self importance.

You may decide something is wrong but only the rule of law can make that
decision objectively and enforce consequences. A mob convinced of its own
infallibility sidetracks all that, evades accountability in favour of their
own perceptions and in an exercise in pure self importance and injustice
delivers consequences. That is little to do with justice and everything to do
with vanity, self importance and inability to recognize the limitation of one
own views, and the value of activism and rule of law.

------
blfr
_This surely sums up the unambitious and self-seeking aims of those who make
it their business to offend_

No, it doesn't. There's just one Milo Yiannopoulos while there are thousands
upon thousands of purposely anonymous channers making memes and cracking
jokes.

I don't know how to say it without sounding negative but this is an
uninsightful article based on little more than outcast mood affiliation.

~~~
madez
I found the article insightful because it puts in words what I also felt
sometimes. The tone of your comment reminds of it.

------
orthoganol
I have trouble endorsing positions like this just at the level of ethics.
Refusing to work with others because of 'disagreements,' even those as similar
as her fellow writers, is a good way to never have an impact on the world and
change it for the better. I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working
with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I
think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish
something great. What does that say about your strength of person that you
find it threatening, or at the minimum, a 'big deal,' to associate with those
you disagree with?

~~~
Nutmog
I think she meant the group kicked her out because the other members were
unable to work with someone who openly disagreed with them.

------
jondubois
I have anti-herd mentality. When a large group of people unanimously agree
about something, I get an insatiable urge to argue against the consensus. Does
that make me a troll?

I think I'm just against extremism. To me, herd mentality is a form of
extremism. Whenever I argue, I'm not trying to convince the other person of my
argument for the sake of winning; I just want them to meet me half way.

In summary, I'm against people believing in anything with 100% certainty.
Doubting things and changing your mind often is the right approach to life...
I think.

------
mmaunder
I'm not active on Twitter and I think I've missed the SJW movement and it's
effects. Perhaps the problem is that complex nuanced ideas can't be expressed
in 160 characters?

~~~
mclovinit
Good point. I think that is a often overlooked observation. People incited
often have a tendency to invite an onrush of thoughts with a desire to express
them in direct proportion to their "excitability factor". When a character
limit is imposed, their tweet may as well be an empty beer bottle hurled
towards their target.

IMO, why one becomes incited in the first place comes from the drunken sense
of control one feels when all they think they are revealing is their
gravatar/profile. However, it is relatively easy to reciprocate with a "herd
agenda" of one's own and launch an attack without the need to extract any real
facts to damage the target's reputation.

If I were to insult an individual in front of a group all physically present,
I would most likely be doing so in a way that the "herd" clearly understands
my message rather than the target. I have always despised this type of
thinking as many do, yet it has become increasingly popular.

------
js8
It's interesting to note that many public intellectuals were publicly shamed
for their opinions, and it was later pretty much reconsidered. Two examples
come to my mind, Noam Chomsky and Tomas Garrigue Masaryk.

Also interestingly these two guys have very strongly opposed most sorts of
elitism, while the phrase "herd mentality" is often used by elitists to
justify their beliefs.

------
rcsorensen
Site appears down.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fa...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fautiYJ:quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd-
mentality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
mkaroumi
Works for me...

~~~
tomhoward
Yeah looks like it's back now.

------
sidcool
SJWs are a new breed of idiots we have to deal with.

------
chipsy
Thus, esoteric philosophy will return to the world.

------
effenponderousa
The wasps who sense any idea within remote proximity to their hive will
instinctively attack.

------
puredemo
1\. She's describing "in-group" preferences in most of the latter part of the
article, not herd mentality. These are two separate things.

2\. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights
outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting
more government restrictions on what is a _fundamental constitutional right_
makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front
are correct.

3\. She's quite insulting. "most sane individuals on this side of the
Atlantic," implying one must be _insane_ to respect and honor 2nd amendment
rights? "Preening contrarians," "infantile sneering," "rejoice in this toxic
effluence." Yikes. Exactly how full of disdain and contempt is she regarding
anyone's opinions that don't precisely align with her own? I find it rather
hard to believe anyone she is criticizing is as vitriolic as the author seems
to be.

4\. The important thing is, she's found a way to feel superior to everyone..

[https://xkcd.com/774/](https://xkcd.com/774/)

~~~
venomsnake
> 2\. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights
> outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly
> wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional
> right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this
> front are correct.

Actually true libertarian would think even the constitution as too restricting
and prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone. Realpolitik all day all
night long.

~~~
asift
>would prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone

Regardless of whether such libertarians are right or wrong in their beliefs
about private governance, this is completely inaccurate depiction of their
views. Peter Stringham's book _Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic
and Social Life_ explores theoretical and empirical foundations for private
governance and why it would not amount to sorting things out based on raw
power.

The book received praise from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-
worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has
preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it
fails."

------
gizmo
Justine Sacco didn't suffer a "devastating online lynching". She got a ton of
nasty tweets and emails, and she got fired from her job. She found a new job
(one she likes) and the internet fury eventually blew over. Unpleasant?
Certainly. A lynching? Heck no.

There are people who do get beaten or killed for who they are. Transgender
people regularly fear for their physical safety. Minorities get abused and
even killed by the police on a daily basis. So when people protest this sort
of injustice online or in real life you'd expect the author to be supportive
of this. Except no, she apparently considers this horrifying mob-like behavior
of social justice warriors.

It's the lazy stance where she supports social justice activism in theory, but
when it comes down to actually protesting abuses of power (which can include
rioting and other mob-like behavior) she considers it unacceptable. Never mind
that historically speaking large scale public protests (= mobs) have often
brought meaningful social progress. I wonder if democracy can even function
without it, because people must have a way to make their voices heard when the
official channels are closed to them.

Don't get me wrong. Mobs are blunt instruments and without question scary.
However, they're not uniquely or especially scary. So when I hear something
like "[mobs] are the thing that frighten me most in the world" I have to roll
my eyes. Other political issues are scarier by several orders of magnitude.
Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual
war. Not on this list: Internet rage directed at Sacco.

~~~
tomhoward
Sacco was home-bound for a year and now carries a stain on her character that
will be with her for her entire life. All for a badly executed joke that was
_liberal_ in its intent.

Sure, plenty of people have it worse in this world, but that does not mean
what happened to her was "fine" and that she was/is totally "fine".

 _Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked.
Perpetual war._

All these issues depend on level-headed, reasoned debate. Mass hysteria will
only make it more likely that we succumb to these threats.

~~~
gizmo
What happened to Sacco was without question unjust. And nowhere did I suggest
it was fine. Mobs are a morally neutral instrument that can be used for good
or evil.

If people just wanted to make the point that it's unacceptable to attack an
unknown person based on a single tweet (regardless of how bad the tweet is),
then that's fine. Except people extrapolate from the Sacco incident to make
sweeping claims about political correctness and mob behavior.

Level-headed debate is just one part of the puzzle. There's no point in having
a debate if the outcome of the debate doesn't matter because the people who
are having the debate are disenfranchised. At that point protests are needed.
This isn't "mass hysteria". People protest because it works.

~~~
tomhoward
No-one disputes that protests like those seen in the Indian independence
movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Iraq War opposition, the Arab Spring,
the gay rights movement etc are extremely valuable and necessary.

Where people object is where justifiable protest switches to ugly mob
behaviour, including things like looting of innocent business operators,
indiscriminate violence and vandalism, etc , just like what happened in
Tottenham.

Mob behaviour, by definition, is where people stop thinking critically about
issues and blindly follow whatever their peers are doing. This can never be
beneficial. Independent, critical thought is essential for positive change to
be effected.

The problem with the modern Social Justice Warrior movement is that it is
_counter_ to the interests of true social justice, as the people who need the
most protection are the smallest minorities, and these are the people who lose
out the most when everyone is banding together in mobs and deliberately
shutting silencing debate and individual expression. Meanwhile, the "social
justice warriors" are far too busy focusing on how moral they _seem_ rather
than how much real social justice they're achieving.

If your response is - as I would hope - that true campaigners for social
justice are not like this, then that's ok - they're not the ones being
criticised.

~~~
gizmo
Looting and rioting is critical component of a public protest, and it's
morally justified. I draw the line at hurting people, which is never
justified. I'm not outraged at property damage when people protest racism or
police brutality, because I value people more than I value things.

As for your claim that rioting and the like can never be beneficial, that's
plainly wrong.

Take for instance the Curaçao uprising in 1969 [1]. Workers protested wage
discrimination and it turned into a mob that burned down 43 businesses and 10
other buildings, primarily those owned by white people. Guess what? The
protest was a complete success, they got the wage they asked for and they got
new democratic elections to boot.

I reiterate: people protest and riot because it works.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Cura%C3%A7ao_uprising](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Cura%C3%A7ao_uprising)

~~~
13thLetter
"Looting and rioting is critical component of a public protest, and it's
morally justified."

No, it really isn't. Quite aside from the immoral way you have just cheerfully
sacrificed strangers' homes and livelihoods in the name of your transient
political goals, looting and rioting leads to businesses and productive
citizens leaving and a collapse of the local economy. Go to Detroit if you
want to see how that works out in the long run.

Incidentally, even if somehow rioting is okay as long as just people of the
appropriate skin color are the ones being harmed, perhaps you should keep in
mind that the folks who start businesses in low-income areas of American
cities tend to be either local black people or immigrants. That's who suffers
when buildings get burned down in the name of "justice."

