"I'm not the only who thinks so"
Posted 07-08-2008 at 02:29 AM by ChockoKittie
Slight rant, but this is a blog so fuck it -
Earlier I had a phone conversation with a friend who closed several statements about candidates and modern politics with "and I'm not the only who thinks so", which left me few choices for a response - basically, "who gives a fuck?", "and", or silence.
The first caught me off guard and was met by silence. For the rest, I chose "and", yet no further evidence was offered, apparently, that was OK. She felt completely secure in her beliefs because somewhere others agree -- not people she holds deep conversations with about the subject or those who challenge or test her views, because being apolitical, no chance of that happening -- but somehow she has developed these inflexible views with a surety that people "out there" must agree with her because she thinks that way.
I'm so disappointed right now - this woman used to have an open, unorthodox (perhaps visionary) mind, and now it has been tainted in such a way that it seeks and safety comfort in ochlocratic nincompoopery.
The moment she said "I'm not the only who thinks so" during our serious dicussion and let that stand as her sole reason, I was crushed. :(
I just want to tell her, please stop using that term it is an example of all that is wrong with the world. Plus, using it just infuriates those who can manage to produce an independent thought and provide empirical evidence to back the shit up... It is perfectly fine to be the *only one* who thinks so (of anything), but justifying your narrow stance by mentioning how others share your view, and leaving it at that, does not help legitimate your position. If anything, it seems weaker as it is subject to every form of wavering and whim while absent facts. I mentioned this... you can guess the response.
So sad, another great mind bites it.
Earlier I had a phone conversation with a friend who closed several statements about candidates and modern politics with "and I'm not the only who thinks so", which left me few choices for a response - basically, "who gives a fuck?", "and", or silence.
The first caught me off guard and was met by silence. For the rest, I chose "and", yet no further evidence was offered, apparently, that was OK. She felt completely secure in her beliefs because somewhere others agree -- not people she holds deep conversations with about the subject or those who challenge or test her views, because being apolitical, no chance of that happening -- but somehow she has developed these inflexible views with a surety that people "out there" must agree with her because she thinks that way.
I'm so disappointed right now - this woman used to have an open, unorthodox (perhaps visionary) mind, and now it has been tainted in such a way that it seeks and safety comfort in ochlocratic nincompoopery.
The moment she said "I'm not the only who thinks so" during our serious dicussion and let that stand as her sole reason, I was crushed. :(
I just want to tell her, please stop using that term it is an example of all that is wrong with the world. Plus, using it just infuriates those who can manage to produce an independent thought and provide empirical evidence to back the shit up... It is perfectly fine to be the *only one* who thinks so (of anything), but justifying your narrow stance by mentioning how others share your view, and leaving it at that, does not help legitimate your position. If anything, it seems weaker as it is subject to every form of wavering and whim while absent facts. I mentioned this... you can guess the response.
So sad, another great mind bites it.
Total Comments 15
Comments
 |  I would link her to this-- Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
  |
| | People seek the security of groups for various reasons. It's not easy being green, you know. While I, too, find her justification of beliefs lacking, other factors may be present. You say she wasn't always like this. Maybe something catastrophic happened that changed her bold individuality into a need for acceptance within a social group? Perhaps she was just trying to anger you? Or maybe she has decided to switch off her brain and let a mob think for her. |
| |
| | The problem with "I'm not the only one who thinks so" is that there is ALWAYS someone else out there who will agree with a position...no matter how ridiculous, petty, inane, self-serving or close-minded it might be. I've often thought that this kind of thinking is just plain lazy. Why spend any effort or time analyzing your position when it is so much easier to just climb aboard some seemingly well-festooned bandwagon? The problem is that most of those nicely decorated rides simply disguise a well-crafted agenda fabricated to advance some special interest. And there is where political parties, organized religions and mass media gather their strength; "Just let us do the thinking for you," they say, "and all will be fine." Easier? Yes. But scary...Dontcha think? |
| |
| |  society itself is based on argumentum ad populum |
| |
| |  Well yippee, she's not alone. That doesn't make her or them, whoever they are, right.  Another annoying trend: People who say, "I heard it on Oprah", or "Oprah said it." As if that makes it the gospel truth.  Don't get me wrong, I like her show and have respect for her philanthropic and charitable works; but I don't always agree with her politically or on fashion.  I can't just take for granted that everything she utters is some magnificent pearl of wisdom. |
| |
| |  XXuxu, she is aware of what she was doing - but like I wrote, it is something she finds comfort in at the moment. Maybe from now forward? Hugo, nothing catastrophic happened, this is her reaction to our nations difficult, confusing, and uncertain period. But yes, she has switched off, in a sort of reverse "dropping out" from the 60s where groups of people sought to expand their minds, she seeks to make hers smaller.  NND, That was so very well written! I absolutley agree and do find the prospect of a nation of people saying "we should just do what *insert name of authority figure* says", "they know what's right", absolutely terrifying. Mista G, this is true. But, in the information age? With so much information readily available - I mean literally at the average person's fingertips - falling back to unnamed others agreeing with you as justification is a supreme cop out. NJ, This is another good issue! There was an essay out a few years ago about the "Cult of Oprah", I didn't read it, but she is a reason why I feel so disconnected from my friends who are SAHMs. They can pull quotes and information about Oprah and guests on her show in such intricate detail it is almost a religion, very much on par with biblical memorization, like a Rabbinical scholar learning how to recite the Mishna. |
| |
| |  I'm so disappointed right now - this woman used to have an open, unorthodox (perhaps visionary) mind, and now it has been tainted in such a way that it seeks and safety comfort in ochlocratic nincompoopery. I encountered enforced conformity to the herd instinct and popular groupthink at an early age. Its difficult to escape. It repelled me as much then as it does now and I resisted it however I could. I certainly was made to pay for my resistance...as is anyone else who dares. Oh yes. It would be nice to say I withstood the pressure to conform in fine form, but, for those who seek to resist, the struggle is a messy one with rewards that are few and fleeting. In the end, I'm not even completely sure that resistance is worthwhile. It takes a strong individual not to eventually cave in to the pressure and no one escapes the struggle undamaged. |
| |
| | Few break free of conformist, or even seemingly non-conformis ideals, unscathed, doing so takes a lot of personal will and a sense of self that many lack. However, I believe it is the process that helps you maintain a compass that points away from the bullshit. Once you escape and make it through the intial negativity, it should be tough to return, I'd think? Also, I'm not stating everyone was meant to be an iconoclast - rather, I'm statingthere's nothing wrong with thinking on your own. It takes time, it is confusing, and there's uncertainty, yes, but it is yours and you own it. She's regressing, pulling away from the difficulty that is part of true individuality (I feel all Ayn Rand at the moment  ), and either she'll snap out of it and face reality and truth or continue to fool herself. Either will be painful to witness. |
| |
| | |
| |
| |  Ew, Ayn Rand. |
| |
| | Actually you hit the nail no the head. The thing making it so sad is that we're in the information age. Has all this eliminated a desire to think for one's self? Seems peeps would rather , instead of seeking unbiased , substantive information , "enlighten" theirselves through a blog with shiny pictures and the latest gossip. So much trust is put in these people who are no different than you or I. They are simply paid to give their opinion. Also known as an "expert". But it's really not that uncommon. Just look at people who use religious or philosophical texts as a standard of truth or reason for action. |
| |
| | Guy-jin, hush. Ayn Rand was the shit. M. Geechee, The blogs and television or other forms of passive media are good points, but I disagree about the texts as each are open to and demand individual interpretation. To read either requires the reader to create their own meaning of what is written, even if the meaning lacks logic, and is much different than a person who allows another to interpret the text for them through a blog or even a pulpit. |
| |
| | Quote:
Ayn Rand was... shit.
Believing in individualism to the point of throwing morality out the window was neither original nor logical. Ayn Rand is just a name people throw around to make themselves feel smart, at this point. Sorry, but I've encountered one too many supposed intellectual assholes who justify their malbehavior by quoting Ayn Rand as if it's the gospel. |
| |
| | Rand's texts are open to interpretation - how one person, or even a group of people, decide to use it as justification for their inhumane policies or other malevolent activities, has little to do with the inspiration other individuals ( ) find in the book's theme or philosophy.Do I agree with all her points, no, but her text did resonate with me. I read Fountainhead as a pre-teen, around the same time as Brave New World and The Winner - all three helped shape my current mindset and I do not discount her works due to assholes adopting it anymore than I would dismiss Locke, Hegel, Marx, Hobbes, or Sun Tzu. |
| |
| | Well yea. That's what I was talking about. When people use the interpretations of others for their own justifications. By teh way , you have great taste, John Locke is a giant. You should read On Politics And Education if you haven't already. |
| |
Recent Blog Entries by ChockoKittie
- "I'm not the only who thinks so" (07-08-2008)
