Mob mentality

[peter_speckhard]

“Lisa, maybe if I’m part of that mob, I can help steer it in wise directions.” Homer Simpson

Imagine this scenario, which is definitely disturbing but in no way farfetched. Using a cell phone, someone has taken a video of a screaming woman being brutally raped and murdered. It goes on for several minutes, so long that many people cannot watch the whole thing. But the perp gets caught, and it turns out he is an illegal immigrant from south of the border. The video goes viral. What would happen next?

I think we can guess. A mob mentality would form nationwide, as would a counter movement that mob. Everyone on both sides would agree that the video depicted something abhorrent and inexcusable. But pre-existing socio-political sides would come into conflict over how exactly that terrible video related to the issue of illegal immigration. Central to both of those sides would be the question of whether the video represented no-longer-deniable evidence of something all too typical, or whether it represented something largely exceptional in nature. The mob would use the passion and raw emotion of the video to demand support for closing the border, and perhaps violence would break out against random immigrants who had nothing to do with the murder. The counter position would rely on reasoning from statistics to show that the mob’s deeply held feelings and presumptions were not backed up by reality. In short, even something everyone agreed on would become politicized and a source of deepening division.
 
Many people would simply be in the middle, but among those people, the raw emotional power of the video coupled with the growing popular sentiment would likely outweigh any attempt to evaluate the issue calmly and rationally. A calm, rational demeanor would seem detached and cold to people who insisted that not to join the mob was to endorse or ignore a larger pattern of predation and to insult the memory of that poor woman and women everywhere.

Given that even one instance of brutal rape and murder is one too many, but also given that in a fallen world there will never be a violent crime rate of zero, I personally would want to know whether or not objective statistics supported the popular and widespread notion that illegal immigrants especially present us with a violent crime problem. In other words, I would be part of the counter movement to the mob. Data, not passion, would determine what I supported. I would ask things like whether there was there something particularly relevant about the ethnicity or immigration status of the perpetrator, or is that just a pre-existing assumption?

All the above scenario would do is reverse the sides of the current cultural conflict that began with the viral video of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer. In both scenarios, the real and hypothetical video, the rational side to be on is the counter movement to the mob. The heat of the moment is heat with real motive power. But it nearly always motivates in regrettable directions.

Being part of a mob, whether literally or (more likely) metaphorically by supporting a movement running largely on cultural momentum generated by a mob mentality, means sacrificing your particular intent to the group. That is, when you join a mob, the mob’s actions are your actions. What the mob did is what you did, whether you approved of it or not. If you were part of the crowd or recognized as an ally of the crowd, you are responsible for whatever destruction that crowd engaged in. That’s the point of mobs—get the power and safety and numbers behind the few who actually take action. Contra Homer Simpson, you don’t get to steer a mob in wise directions. You add your weight to the momentum, or you don’t. If your goal it to destroy the target of the mob (not your personal target, but whatever target the momentum of the mob is rolling toward) it might be wise to join the mob, not to steer but to lend it strength. If that isn’t your goal, it is wise not to join and wiser still to try to slow it down. The main things that distinguishes protests from mobs is self-policing and respect for law and order. Because the group’s actions are the individual’s actions, movements that don’t want to degenerate into mobs make sure that nobody plausibly claiming or even appearing to act in the group’s name does anything regrettable. And they redress government peacefully, not via threat of violence.

Today, BLM and the larger movement revolving around issues of race in the wake of the Floyd murder is a mob and nothing more. To support it is to support the torching of federal courthouses and the deliberate, permanent blinding of federal agents, whether you think so or not. The mob you join wants the weight of your support, not your opinion or your help steering things in wise directions. Thus, to say you reject the excesses of the movement but support the broader movement in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive movement while denying responsibility for the damage that movement causes. Again, not every political movement degenerates into a mob. But when a mob forms, the time for nuance is gone. There is only being with it or against it. 

 
 

[Dan Fienen]

To be emotionally sensitive means being careful about whom you sympathize with.

Pastor Fienen writes:Whatever, no doubt those neighborhoods will be better off with fewer businesses.
I comment: I am continually shaken and in despair over the wooden responses from some people here.Sometimes the businesses are run by people from outside the neighborhood. But do you not think that the people in the "neighborhoods" know that the destruction of property will hurt the neighborhood, even if the businesses are locally owned?    Then - you might ask - why do they do it? Did you read my comments about the anger and frustration felt by those suffering the consequences of being poor, or the wrong race or in bad health or with a three- or four-generation family to care for?    Now try to imagine, or just get the teeniest tiniest scent of the feelings and pain of the people in those neighborhoods. Just try. I'm sure the scent won't make you want to go out and set a fire or throw a bottle at a cop. But if you had lived surrounded by the stench of economic and racial oppression for decades, the smell just might make you lean that direction.

[Julio]

It’s extremely concerning when the ‘sympathy’ is for the violent destructive rioting thugs rather than for the law enforcement officers ... injured, maimed, blinded unnecessarily injured and exposed to the virus by these self serving outlaws.

[Dave Benke]

“Lisa, maybe if I’m part of that mob, I can help steer it in wise directions.” Homer Simpson

Imagine this scenario, which is definitely disturbing but in no way farfetched. Using a cell phone, someone has taken a video of a screaming woman being brutally raped and murdered. It goes on for several minutes, so long that many people cannot watch the whole thing. But the perp gets caught, and it turns out he is an illegal immigrant from south of the border. The video goes viral. What would happen next?

I think we can guess. A mob mentality would form nationwide, as would a counter movement that mob. Everyone on both sides would agree that the video depicted something abhorrent and inexcusable. But pre-existing socio-political sides would come into conflict over how exactly that terrible video related to the issue of illegal immigration. Central to both of those sides would be the question of whether the video represented no-longer-deniable evidence of something all too typical, or whether it represented something largely exceptional in nature. The mob would use the passion and raw emotion of the video to demand support for closing the border, and perhaps violence would break out against random immigrants who had nothing to do with the murder. The counter position would rely on reasoning from statistics to show that the mob’s deeply held feelings and presumptions were not backed up by reality. In short, even something everyone agreed on would become politicized and a source of deepening division.
 
Many people would simply be in the middle, but among those people, the raw emotional power of the video coupled with the growing popular sentiment would likely outweigh any attempt to evaluate the issue calmly and rationally. A calm, rational demeanor would seem detached and cold to people who insisted that not to join the mob was to endorse or ignore a larger pattern of predation and to insult the memory of that poor woman and women everywhere.

Given that even one instance of brutal rape and murder is one too many, but also given that in a fallen world there will never be a violent crime rate of zero, I personally would want to know whether or not objective statistics supported the popular and widespread notion that illegal immigrants especially present us with a violent crime problem. In other words, I would be part of the counter movement to the mob. Data, not passion, would determine what I supported. I would ask things like whether there was there something particularly relevant about the ethnicity or immigration status of the perpetrator, or is that just a pre-existing assumption?

All the above scenario would do is reverse the sides of the current cultural conflict that began with the viral video of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer. In both scenarios, the real and hypothetical video, the rational side to be on is the counter movement to the mob. The heat of the moment is heat with real motive power. But it nearly always motivates in regrettable directions.

Being part of a mob, whether literally or (more likely) metaphorically by supporting a movement running largely on cultural momentum generated by a mob mentality, means sacrificing your particular intent to the group. That is, when you join a mob, the mob’s actions are your actions. What the mob did is what you did, whether you approved of it or not. If you were part of the crowd or recognized as an ally of the crowd, you are responsible for whatever destruction that crowd engaged in. That’s the point of mobs—get the power and safety and numbers behind the few who actually take action. Contra Homer Simpson, you don’t get to steer a mob in wise directions. You add your weight to the momentum, or you don’t. If your goal it to destroy the target of the mob (not your personal target, but whatever target the momentum of the mob is rolling toward) it might be wise to join the mob, not to steer but to lend it strength. If that isn’t your goal, it is wise not to join and wiser still to try to slow it down. The main things that distinguishes protests from mobs is self-policing and respect for law and order. Because the group’s actions are the individual’s actions, movements that don’t want to degenerate into mobs make sure that nobody plausibly claiming or even appearing to act in the group’s name does anything regrettable. And they redress government peacefully, not via threat of violence.

Today, BLM and the larger movement revolving around issues of race in the wake of the Floyd murder is a mob and nothing more. To support it is to support the torching of federal courthouses and the deliberate, permanent blinding of federal agents, whether you think so or not. The mob you join wants the weight of your support, not your opinion or your help steering things in wise directions. Thus, to say you reject the excesses of the movement but support the broader movement in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive movement while denying responsibility for the damage that movement causes. Again, not every political movement degenerates into a mob. But when a mob forms, the time for nuance is gone. There is only being with it or against it.

You're going to have to give up pro sports.  Every player in the NBA is wearing BLM shirts, with some very impressive special ceremonies and videos, followed by taking a knee together.  Pretty much the same in MLB.   "The BLM...is a mob and nothing more."   If that's your pitch, there are very very few catchers in pro sports.  Maybe golf?

Dave Benke

[Rob Morris]

Or there's this: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/jonathan-isaac-cites-gospel-as-explanation-for-not-kneeling-wearing-black-lives-matter-shirt-friday/

As I said a few weeks ago - I support affirming the value of black lives. I do not support Black Lives Matter. That much of our society doesn't see the difference just tells me how few people have actually read any of BLM's material. Which also tells me there is a lot of virtue signaling, and not a great deal of virtue exercising.

[peter_speckhard]

“Lisa, maybe if I’m part of that mob, I can help steer it in wise directions.” Homer Simpson

Imagine this scenario, which is definitely disturbing but in no way farfetched. Using a cell phone, someone has taken a video of a screaming woman being brutally raped and murdered. It goes on for several minutes, so long that many people cannot watch the whole thing. But the perp gets caught, and it turns out he is an illegal immigrant from south of the border. The video goes viral. What would happen next?

I think we can guess. A mob mentality would form nationwide, as would a counter movement that mob. Everyone on both sides would agree that the video depicted something abhorrent and inexcusable. But pre-existing socio-political sides would come into conflict over how exactly that terrible video related to the issue of illegal immigration. Central to both of those sides would be the question of whether the video represented no-longer-deniable evidence of something all too typical, or whether it represented something largely exceptional in nature. The mob would use the passion and raw emotion of the video to demand support for closing the border, and perhaps violence would break out against random immigrants who had nothing to do with the murder. The counter position would rely on reasoning from statistics to show that the mob’s deeply held feelings and presumptions were not backed up by reality. In short, even something everyone agreed on would become politicized and a source of deepening division.
 
Many people would simply be in the middle, but among those people, the raw emotional power of the video coupled with the growing popular sentiment would likely outweigh any attempt to evaluate the issue calmly and rationally. A calm, rational demeanor would seem detached and cold to people who insisted that not to join the mob was to endorse or ignore a larger pattern of predation and to insult the memory of that poor woman and women everywhere.

Given that even one instance of brutal rape and murder is one too many, but also given that in a fallen world there will never be a violent crime rate of zero, I personally would want to know whether or not objective statistics supported the popular and widespread notion that illegal immigrants especially present us with a violent crime problem. In other words, I would be part of the counter movement to the mob. Data, not passion, would determine what I supported. I would ask things like whether there was there something particularly relevant about the ethnicity or immigration status of the perpetrator, or is that just a pre-existing assumption?

All the above scenario would do is reverse the sides of the current cultural conflict that began with the viral video of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer. In both scenarios, the real and hypothetical video, the rational side to be on is the counter movement to the mob. The heat of the moment is heat with real motive power. But it nearly always motivates in regrettable directions.

Being part of a mob, whether literally or (more likely) metaphorically by supporting a movement running largely on cultural momentum generated by a mob mentality, means sacrificing your particular intent to the group. That is, when you join a mob, the mob’s actions are your actions. What the mob did is what you did, whether you approved of it or not. If you were part of the crowd or recognized as an ally of the crowd, you are responsible for whatever destruction that crowd engaged in. That’s the point of mobs—get the power and safety and numbers behind the few who actually take action. Contra Homer Simpson, you don’t get to steer a mob in wise directions. You add your weight to the momentum, or you don’t. If your goal it to destroy the target of the mob (not your personal target, but whatever target the momentum of the mob is rolling toward) it might be wise to join the mob, not to steer but to lend it strength. If that isn’t your goal, it is wise not to join and wiser still to try to slow it down. The main things that distinguishes protests from mobs is self-policing and respect for law and order. Because the group’s actions are the individual’s actions, movements that don’t want to degenerate into mobs make sure that nobody plausibly claiming or even appearing to act in the group’s name does anything regrettable. And they redress government peacefully, not via threat of violence.

Today, BLM and the larger movement revolving around issues of race in the wake of the Floyd murder is a mob and nothing more. To support it is to support the torching of federal courthouses and the deliberate, permanent blinding of federal agents, whether you think so or not. The mob you join wants the weight of your support, not your opinion or your help steering things in wise directions. Thus, to say you reject the excesses of the movement but support the broader movement in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive movement while denying responsibility for the damage that movement causes. Again, not every political movement degenerates into a mob. But when a mob forms, the time for nuance is gone. There is only being with it or against it.

You're going to have to give up pro sports.  Every player in the NBA is wearing BLM shirts, with some very impressive special ceremonies and videos, followed by taking a knee together.  Pretty much the same in MLB.   "The BLM...is a mob and nothing more."   If that's your pitch, there are very very few catchers in pro sports.  Maybe golf?

Dave Benke

Every Marxist mob has a celebrity veneer of radical chic types. It amazes me that these guys think it is really something to wear labels on their bodies strictly limited to messages pre-approved by their owners. Very bold. But yeah, had I been into the NBA before, I would be getting out of it now. I haven't watched an MLB, either, mostly because I don't have an antennae hooked up to my tv and I don't think I get whatever channels they're streaming the games on. That and I have better things to be doing.

In general I don't care what any celebrity thinks. I hire them (indirectly) to entertain me much like I hire a mechanic to fix my car. Not interested in their politics one way or the other. I enjoy movies regardless of whether the actors are fascists, racists, communists, or what-have you, just so long as they don't ruin the movie with bad acting. But if they interrupted the movie periodically with political speeches, I would stop watching altogether, regardless of how good the movie was otherwise. I do the same with sports. I don't care whether the Packers' d-linemen are Libertarians or Green party types, just so long as they stuff the run and pressure the quarterback. But if they make their politics impossible to ignore, I will tune out the whole game rather than tune into the hair-brained lectures.

That is where I think MLB (and without question the NBA) is making a big mistake. By superimposing political statements onto the pitcher's mound or putting cheesy slogans on the players' uniforms, the nitwittery becomes part of the actual game rather than an ignorable sideshow. I think the NFL will learn something, and after throwing a bone to the mob on opening day, much like paying a gangster for protection, they'll soon revert to focusing on football. If not, then (as Jason Whitlock predicts) they'll jump the shark and never again be the premier organization of American popular culture.   

[peter_speckhard]

To reiterate: Thus, to say you reject the excesses of the movement but support the broader movement in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive movement while denying responsibility for the damage that movement causes.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
To reiterate: Thus, to say you reject the excesses of the movement but support the broader movement in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive movement while denying responsibility for the damage that movement causes.

I comment:
To rephrase: Thus, to say you reject the excesses of Trump’s tweets and statements but support Him in general, I think you are kidding yourself. It is an irresponsible position. It lends moral and cultural weight to a snowballing, utterly destructive man while denying responsibility for the damage that he can cause.

It is indeed the same phenomenon in reverse, as per my initial post. The difference is that Trump is duly elected and working within the rule of law, and his "utter destruction" is all theoretical, all tweets and statements, always something terrible about to happen any time now in the minds of his detractors, whereas the destruction of this Marxist mob is plainly visible. If it were all tweets and statements rather than blinded federal agents, dead police officers, burned buildings, and rejection of our cultural heritage, from George Washington to Flannery O'Connor, I wouldn't consider it a mob but more of a political ideology I disagree with. 

[D. Engebretson]

Since the official group "Black Lives Matter" is up for discussion, it might be helpful if we took a look at their website and saw what they are promoting.  I certainly support equal rites for people of color.  No question.  But do I support everything BLM now promotes and stands for outside of racial issues?

The website: www.blacklivesmatter.com

Some material from their website:
"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe." 

One headline states: "Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That" (https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/17/black-lives-matter-activist).  The activist states: "When activists say they want to abolish the police, they “100%” mean they want no more police."

This is a blanket statement that at face value is entirely anti-police. Yes, we need to reform those areas that are corrupt and dysfunctional.  But, we do not need to attack the institution, as such. But the call is not to reform. See below.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

The "nuclear family" is not a "requirement."  People are free to choose as they desire in this country.  So why do we have to make a concerted effort to "disrupt" it, labeling the "nuclear family" as a subpar invention of the western culture?  Are black people who support the nuclear family contrary to the goals of BLM?

Does this organization represent the countless Christian black people who uphold traditional values and structures?  I think we need to be honest about the black community that is not on board with their stated goals and philosophy.  It is in no way a monolithic movement.  And we have to be honest the "Black Lives Matter" is a slogan to which much more is attached than simply the need to respect, honor and protect black people.  What about law enforcement officers who are black? Should they quit? What if they support what they are doing? Are they, by definition, anti-black? 

I don't think that an organization can support BLM without supporting the official organization that now bears this name, and the philosophy that they promote.  It is a recognized label and stands for certain things, not all of which are simply calls for justice and equality for black people.  For example, they have a philosophy that embraces a broad range of sexual identity politics.  It stands for dismantling the entire system of law enforcement. They do not want to 'reform' the system. They are clear on this.  They are convinced that such an effort has failed. "It is a system built on harming black people." So law enforcement has been colored as anti-black. Now, in fairness, they talk as well as divesting a part of the current police budges and redirecting it to other areas.  But their plan simply divests, but does not at all give any kind of vision for policing and law enforcement after this divesting. Recent riots have shown that a radical, arachical segment, that to a degree is co-opting BLM, is not only anti-police, but has, in essence, declared war on it.   

Yet this slogan has taken on a cultural status and to refuse to endorse it, as is, has societal consequences. Is this right?

[Terry W Culler]

I suspect that many people who say they support BLM have little to no idea what they stand for beyond what all thoughtful people believe.  But the ideological place inhabited by many of the left is wholly contrary to democratic governance or free expression.  The Cato Institute did a survey recently finding, among other things, that 50% of people who describe themselves as very liberal believe supporter of President Trump should be fired from their jobs!  The survey also found that 2/3 of Americans are afraid to express their political opinions, the only real exception being the liberal and very liberal folks.  I don't know what the number is now, but the number of people claiming to be liberal or very liberal has always hovered somewhere in the low 20% of the public.  So America is now being driven by ideologues who represent almost no one but themselves and yet claim to be representing the "people".  Bolsheviks anyone?

[D. Engebretson]

I will agree that the current political climate is certainly having a dampening effect on what one says publicly.  Although my locality is rural and still somewhat conservative, I am guarded in what I say given that some of the things I believe are currently not only unpopular, but probably considered antithetical to what is supposed to be the reigning social norm.  I am not surprised that so many are afraid to express their political opinions.  The emotive anger out there is intimidating. 

[Jim Butler]

You're going to have to give up pro sports.  Every player in the NBA is wearing BLM shirts, with some very impressive special ceremonies and videos, followed by taking a knee together.  Pretty much the same in MLB.   "The BLM...is a mob and nothing more."   If that's your pitch, there are very very few catchers in pro sports.  Maybe golf?

Dave Benke

Of course the NBA is wearing BLM shirts. What do you think would say..."Free Hong Kong"?

The NBA, MLB, and any other sports group that's busily pushing Black Lives Matter are just a bunch of hypocrites. They say "Black Lives Matter" while wearing uniforms produced by Nike which are made Uighur Muslims* in concentration camps, i.e. slave labor.**

This is the same NBA/MLB, etc. which also look the other way as the Chinese gleefully rip off their jerseys. Seriously, don't buy anything from Fanatics. There are plenty of Chinese places that will sell you one for one-fifth the cost.

Sports is nothing but entertainment. As long as you take it for no more than that, it's fine. But they can peddle their hypocritical politics somewhere else.

*That's actual Islamophobia.

**Nike says they are not. These places have been certified as slave free...by the Chinese government, which refuses to allow anyone from the outside in.

[Dan Fienen]

Babylon Bee stings again https://babylonbee.com/news/nba-requiring-all-players-to-wear-masks-depicting-chinese-flag

[James_Gale]

One NBA player, Jonathan Isaac, is showing courage by standing up to the mob; he is not kneeling during the anthem or wearing a BLM shirt.  His thoughtful explanation during a post-game Q&A is worth consideration by us all:




Reporter:  So you didn’t kneel during the anthem, but you also didn’t wear a Black Lives Matter shirt? Uh, do you believe that black lives matter?
Isaac, who is black:   Absolutely. I believe that black lives matter. A lot went into my decision.  And part of it is, my first thought, is that kneeling while wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt don’t go hand in hand with supporting black lives.  My life has been supported through the Gospel, Jesus Christ and that everyone is made in the image of God and that we all fall short of God’s glory and that each and every one of us, each and every day do things that we shouldn’t do. And say things that we shouldn’t say. We hate and dislike people that we shouldn’t hate and dislike. Sometimes it gets to a point where we point fingers about whose evil is worse. And sometimes it comes out as whose evil is most visible. So I felt like I just wanted to take a stand on, I felt like we all make mistakes but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that there’s grace for us. That Jesus came and died for our sins and that if we all would come to an understanding of that and understand that God wants to have a relationship with us, that we can get past skin color, we can get past all the things in our world that are messed up, jacked up. I think we need to look around. Racism isn’t the only thing that plagues our society, that plagues our nation, that plagues our world.

Here's a link to the video:  Link

[peter_speckhard]

One NBA player, Jonathan Isaac, is showing courage by standing up to the mob; he is not kneeling during the anthem or wearing a BLM shirt.  His thoughtful explanation during a post-game Q&A is worth consideration by us all:




Reporter:  So you didn’t kneel during the anthem, but you also didn’t wear a Black Lives Matter shirt? Uh, do you believe that black lives matter?
Isaac, who is black:   Absolutely. I believe that black lives matter. A lot went into my decision.  And part of it is, my first thought, is that kneeling while wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt don’t go hand in hand with supporting black lives.  My life has been supported through the Gospel, Jesus Christ and that everyone is made in the image of God and that we all fall short of God’s glory and that each and every one of us, each and every day do things that we shouldn’t do. And say things that we shouldn’t say. We hate and dislike people that we shouldn’t hate and dislike. Sometimes it gets to a point where we point fingers about whose evil is worse. And sometimes it comes out as whose evil is most visible. So I felt like I just wanted to take a stand on, I felt like we all make mistakes but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that there’s grace for us. That Jesus came and died for our sins and that if we all would come to an understanding of that and understand that God wants to have a relationship with us, that we can get past skin color, we can get past all the things in our world that are messed up, jacked up. I think we need to look around. Racism isn’t the only thing that plagues our society, that plagues our nation, that plagues our world.

Here's a link to the video:  Link

That's a great answer, especially when contrasted with the breathtaking stupidity and offensiveness of the question. How that reporter can still have a job after asking that is beyond me. But these days, he actually represents the mob mentality I'm talking about pretty well. Not to wear a cheesy, corporate-approved slogan on your shirt is to call into question whether you believe your own life matters.