nortex97 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Consensus and groupthink aren't the same thing.

What's interesting is that you have a wide range of people here - politically and religiously - who seem to agree on the subject of F16. It's actually probably the only topic on this forum where there is broad consensus.

---

Maybe, but a lot of that consensus is among people who have been…rejected on F16 quite a bit, apparently, and I think that drives some of the irrational dislike/hatred of the other forum. The need to snidely refer, without any kind of factual/real argumentative reference to the vile/evil nature of F16, is evidence not of a consensus, but something else, imho. Which is fine, but it illustrates to me a lot of the 'mass psychosis' here in response to/relating to f16, as once more demonstrated by this very thread (and responses since my own last one).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The term gained attention after it was floated by Dr. Robert Malone on "The Joe Rogan Experience" Dec. 31 podcast. Malone is a scientist who once researched mRNA technology but is now a vocal skeptic of the COVID-19 vaccines that use it.

But psychology experts say the concept described by Malone is not supported by evidence, and is similar to theories that have long been discredited. Here's a look at the facts…
…Psychology experts say there is no support for the "psychosis" theory described by Malone.

"To my knowledge, there's no evidence whatsoever for this concept," said Jay Van Bavel, an assistant professor of psychology and neural science at New York University who recently co-authored a book on group identities. Van Bavel said he had never encountered the phrase "mass formation psychosis" in his years of research, nor could he find it in any peer-reviewed literature.

---

The AP couldn't be missing the point harder if they tried. The idea behind mass formation psychosis is not that people are literally hypnotized, i.e., as you'd see in the movies where someone crows like a rooster and stops smoking. Rather, it's a way to express the collective irrationality being shown by millions of people who will literally do anything to try to "stop the spread," no matter how ineffective the measures being promoted are.

For example, despite all the data showing that the vaccines don't work to stop the spread of COVID-19, people still push policies like vaccine passports and vaccine mandates as not only physically necessary but morally necessary as well. Those who hang on Dr. Anthony Fauci's every word do so under the delusion that whatever the "experts" say must be abided by in order to avoid catastrophe. That's how you end up with a Houston area teacher locking a child in the trunk of a car because he supposedly needed to be "quarantined."

Those types of irrationalities are what drive the idea of a widespread psychosis formulated by the largely baseless fear-mongering of the expert class and that's what makes the AP's "fact-check" so ironic.
They are claiming that there aren't millions of Americans blindly accepting the dictates of a tiny class of over-credentialed figures, yet they try to prove that case by demanding you be dictated to by a tiny class of over-credentialed figures they cite. I couldn't think of a better way to not prove their point than that.

In short, people can quibble over the semantics of clinical diagnoses. Yet, there is no doubt that a huge number of Americans (and people all over the world) are no longer able to make rational risk assessments because their leaders have refused to be honest with them. Instead, the thirst for power and a desire to avoid political responsibility for failure has overtaken all. So the AP can call that phenomenon whatever they'd like, but it's absolutely a real problem, and it's one that a nation like the United States is going to have to figure out a way to solve before our society dives off the cliff.

---

Stupidity, or 'mass psychosis' are just quibbling over terminology, in this case, imho. A veneer of philosophical sophistication is all that Bonhoeffer's terminology/history really is, vs. calling it something else. I certainly believe there is even more 'groupthink' or psychosis or stupidity, however one might wish to label it, on the covid forum, which is as intolerant of dissent as anything on TA.

---

Zobel said:

---

I have posted "dissenting" articles on the COVID forum and never once have been banned or deleted. The reason people get banned from there isn't because of groupthink, it's because they don't read the very simple rules - it's not a place for political discussion or speculation. It's a place to share reliable information. Even then, a good deal of discussion and "dissent" happens on there.

It is nearly impossible to have a discussion on F16 that strays from its own self selected view. You absolutely will get shouted down, called a lib, be accused of wanting mandates etc. i was called a lib and a Biden supporter for having the crazy opinion that dictatorships are bad. Wild, I know, I'm such a rabid left winger. The biggest problem is everything is binary on that forum, and nothing is binary in real life. The other problem is that people on there forum are, I suspect, of a certain age and have a tendency to be vulnerable to fake news and conspiracy theories (see the Q thread for example). It usually takes a while before clickbait or fake news headlines are even questioned. When they are, the thread dies, but it doesn't prevent the same type of stupid fake news thread from being posted again the next day.

I figured out a while ago that people there aren't interested in actual "scout" mindset discussions - improving their position. It's very much an entertainment forum, for aggressive agreeing and snarky one liners. There is no substantive discussion or nuance on most of the topics. On occasion you get a decent one, usually on economics (because there is more variance there in views even among the regulars, especially on populism vs more laissez faire capitalism) but that's the exception.

Here you get a pretty decent of amount of actual discussion and disagreement. Probably because here the default position isn't "people who agree with me have a mental illness". This forum also does a better job at self moderating, including calling out people we substantively agree with for insults or ad hom arguments. That's probably at least in part because it's a smaller and more tight knit community.

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Stupidity, or 'mass psychosis' are just quibbling over terminology, in this case, imho. A veneer of philosophical sophistication is all that Bonhoeffer's terminology/history really is, vs. calling it something else. I certainly believe there is even more 'groupthink' or psychosis or stupidity, however one might wish to label it, on the covid forum, which is as intolerant of dissent as anything on TA.

---

I think it's telling that while most on this thread are trying to find ways to avoid "stupidity", you've twice tried to point out that groups that don't agree with you are the ones that really have the problem. I'd say the path to wisdom involves much more self-criticism than criticism of others. Focusing entirely on the criticism of others (even if deserved) is a way to demonize other people and stop moderating your own behavior.

All of the worst groups have had their boogeymen that kept people's focus off their own badness. The Nazi's had the Communists and Jews, the Communists had the Whites, the American Settlers had the savage Indians, the Hutu had the Tutsi, and the Chicoms had the anti-revolutionaries and now the Uyghurs. In each case every atrocity is countered by "well they did this bad thing and they were going to do more bad things". It's just not a healthy mindset to "defend" our own bad behaviors by pointing at the faults of others

---

Quote:

---

National Socialism and the Nation's Health

No profession in Germany became so numerically attached to National Socialism in both its leadership and membership as was the medical profession. Because of their philosophical orientation toward finding a more scientific basis for medical research and practice, government funding for research, and the practical benefits of acquiring university positions and medical practices from the many banned and exiled German Jewish doctors, many physicians supported Nazi policies. One of the first Nazi laws, passed July 14, 1933, was the "Law for the Prevention of Progeny of Hereditary Disease," intended to "consolidate" social and health policies in the German population and prohibit the right of reproduction for persons defined as "genetically inferior." After 1933, the connection between the theory and practice of politicized medicine advocated by many in Weimar Germany became actual in Nazi Germany.

---

Quote:

---

After Hitler's health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

---

nortex97 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Just the opposite doc, I've provided some references to specific issues, and others have returned, repeatedly, to zero in on f16. Further, the criticism isn't really about me, but some bogeyman 'culture' on another forum that is just a click away.

---

---

nortex97 said:

---

Not sure if you meant to reply to me or not, but I choose not to do the lame trolling/sock stuff some seem to enjoy. I find it boring/unscientific at best, though some (MF Barnes etc.) have done it better than others over the years.

It's also a violation of the site rules, I believe.

---

Jabin said:

---

nm

---

Zobel said:

---

Come on, don't tease. What topic is verboten? At least give us a hint.

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Come on, don't tease. What topic is verboten? At least give us a hint.

---

OK, I'm weak and have no willpower.

YEC is verboten and, to a lesser extent, anything positive about evangelicalism is verboten.

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Come on, don't tease. What topic is verboten? At least give us a hint.

---

OK, I'm weak and have no willpower.

YEC is verboten and, to a lesser extent, anything positive about evangelicalism is verboten.

---

Quote:

---

anything positive about evangelicalism is verboten.

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

anything positive about evangelicalism is verboten.

---

Honestly, I think this is probably the harder one of the two issues you listed. I don't see a lot starting threads to discuss the positives of evangelicalism. Most of the time, and this could just be my own bias influencing how I perceive things here, the "positives" are raised as a counter to a thread that's critical of evangelicalism. That tends to lead to a lot of frustration where both sides are just arguing past each other. I think it would be more beneficial to start more threads about the positives, while also not using "positives" as a response to the "negatives" because it comes across as trying to brush away the negatives.

---

Quote:

---

It seems like we're still collectively unable to distinguish between consensus and groupthink. How do you see the difference between those two things?

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

anything positive about evangelicalism is verboten.

---

Honestly, I think this is probably the harder one of the two issues you listed. I don't see a lot starting threads to discuss the positives of evangelicalism. Most of the time, and this could just be my own bias influencing how I perceive things here, the "positives" are raised as a counter to a thread that's critical of evangelicalism. That tends to lead to a lot of frustration where both sides are just arguing past each other. I think it would be more beneficial to start more threads about the positives, while also not using "positives" as a response to the "negatives" because it comes across as trying to brush away the negatives.

---