Piling On

The BBQ Pit
1

This is about board policy, and so I’m placing it here. I realize the potential for a quick succession of irony posts. “Hey! I could do something clever like join/start/lead/participate in a pile-on.” Hopefully, Polycarp’s Law will hold. (After a few posts or pages of loud clatter, things will settle down and a discussion will ensue.)

Recent threads on bias — from moderators, from conservatives, from liberals, from leftists, what have you — dealt in part with the phenomenon of bias squelching viewpoints. The conservative mod, for example, might be seen as squelching the viewpoint of the leftist environmentalist if the former goes in guns-a-blazin’ at the latter, even if he’s not operating as a mod. (DavidB often gave me this impression in my earliest years.)

But I don’t think any of the mods, with a possible exception or two, really allow any bias of any sort, including a personal one, to interfere with their duties. If anything, most of them go out of their way to avoid as much as possible even the perception of bias. Anyway, this thread isn’t about that. I mention it only to give historical context and to point out that this thread is about the squelching of viewpoints by a different method: piling on.

Here’s the topic sentence of the post if anyone wants to pull something out without addressing the whole thing: I submit that piling on can essentially be a trolling tactic.

First of all, what do I mean by piling on? I draw a distinction between many posters against one in which (1) all the posts (or most) are different, making different points and (2) all the posts (or most) are the same, making the same point. As I see it, (1) is not a problem, but (2) is.

Okay, (1) can go something like this…

Poster A: Conservatives suck.

Poster B: That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Poster C: Why do you say that?

Poster D: Do you mean all conservatives or just specific ones?

Poster E: You’re right, but I would point out that liberals suck as well.

In those posts, there are four different responses to Poster A. A pile-on by definition, but not a trolling one because of all the different points or questions. A poster has to be prepared to answer all legitimate questions. But (2) would go something like this…

Poster A: Liberals suck.

Poster B: That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Poster C: You’re such a fucking idiot.

Poster D: Well, I can see that Poster A is still as big a dumbass as ever.

Poster E: Here’s a list of links to other examples of Poster A’s stupidity.

There are four straight posts basically saying that Poster A is an idiot. After Poster B, all the other posts are just “me too”. It seems to me that a “me too” post that does nothing more than heave an insult is specifically designed to get a rise out of one or more of the people involved — Poster A, all the posters who hate Poster A, and/or all the posters who like Poster A.

Now, none of this would be bad per se, except that, as I see it, pile-ons of Type 2 are sometimes themselves cited as evidence of something, usually as fallacies of appeal or statistics. “Look how many people think you’re an idiot/troll/jerk/asshole.” When in all likelihood, many of those who piled on did so for no reason other than having fun, supporting their friends, venting, or taking advantage of an opportunity to dump on someone they dislike. A pile-on of that type cannot be taken as evidence of consensus for lots of reasons: (1) maybe supporters of Poster A are, in general, not around; (2) maybe his friends have a weaker stomach for vitriol; (3) maybe their default position is that the people piling on are making themselves look like idiots; (4) maybe they think Poster A is already answering the others just fine and doesn’t need help; and so on.

I doubt that piling on of that type will ever be forbidden unless the powers that be see it the same way. Sometimes, the emotional effect of a pile-on cannot be appreciated without being the object of it. Powers seldom are. (With notable exceptions.) But I think that the membership, at the very least, should recognize it for what it is, and call people on it when they do it. The viewpoints of Poster A are being suppressed by nothing more than noise.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how this thread itself pans out. Will EddyTeddyFreddy disagree with me and be joined by the usuals in his camp? Will SentientMeat say that I make a good logical point and be joined by the usuals in his camp? Or will it pan out differently? Will Jodi say, “You know what? This bothers me, too.” While Contrapuntal says, “Lib, I don’t see it. What’s the problem?”? Will EleanorRigby pop in to post something ironic about there being too many posts about me? Or will he/she just quietly post his/her opinion as though someone he/she respected had opened the thread?

Okay, let’s give the clever pile-on responses a page or two to die down. But hope springs eternal, so maybe a serious discussion can begin right away.

2

I can’t get the links to work . Is it just me ?

3

I’m not so sure I am in full agreement here.

Type 1 can be the most difficult for Poster A. Trying to discuss several different points at the same time is time consuming and it can be easy to lose track of who said what, and where you are in the discussion.

Type 2 can be dismissed by Poster A as just some idiots (or the “Usual Suspects”) being snide.

YMMV.

4

Some general thoughts:

It would be a wonderful thing if posters would reply as if someone they respected had opened the thread. Truly wonderful. At the very least, if a poster says, in effect, “I see you are up to your old tricks,” that poster should provide relevant cites.

I suppose that sometimes I am guilty of piling on, under a strict interpretation of your definition. I like to think that I do it to add emphasis rather than to be a bully, but I have found that I tend toward a bias that puts my motives in the best possible light. :slight_smile:

ETF is a chick.

5

I don’t see pile-ons as being a pervasive board problem. In order to get piled on, you really need to say something outrageously stupid, in which case, dammit, you need to be piled on. And is this an issue outside of the Pit?

6

Er, no, this is not true. Pile-ons occur for precisely the reasons Lib outlined: fun, revenge, boredom, dislike, joining in with their friends. And for no other reason other than, “This is in the Pit so I can say whatever I damn well please”.

And people have been complaining about pileons in the Pit as long as I’ve been here.

You’re basically fighting human nature here, Lib. You’re asking people to stop being “people” and start being, I dunno, some kind of super-rational posting machine. “Me too” posts and the whole nature of the pile-on is such a fundamentally human thing to do that anyone trying to prevent it is going to be fighting a losing battle. Especially this part:

Those are four basic human, social needs, and I doubt whether there’s anything short of a mass prefrontal lobotomy that’s gonna remove them from Dopers.

But hey, you keep flying the flag, we all have a great respect for those who espouse Lost Causes. :smiley:
Psst…Omegaman? Those aren’t real links, they’re just colored text, for illustration purposes.

7

I think that an unpopular viewpoint might lend itself to piling on, just because of the metaphysical tie between popularity and numbers. But it certainly need not be stupid.

It can be. A post in Great Debates, for example, might draw many responses, all basically making the same point in opposition. Then, when one of the posts is answered as representative of all, a couple of posters might post just to say that you failed to address their posts — even though their points were not significantly different.

8

Granted. However, there are other aspects of human nature, like bigotry from fear of the unknown for example, that are suppressed.

People can be beasts. They can also be civilized. I understand that the Pit is not a civilized place necessarily, and so that’s why I said that although a rule would not likely develop, it would be nice if Type 2 pile-ons did not hold so much sway as evidence of a member’s status. Just because twenty people started a shirtstorm over you doesn’t mean you were the one who was a problem.

9

This is either very witty or very sad. Either way, thanks for the laugh!

10

I would say most of them were made by people who said something really stupid and the resulting pileons could be seen as appropriate. Some folks don’t understand that a single, well reasoned and attested, post demonstrates conclusively that they are wrong. Many of them don’t get it when 999 people pummel them to the ground while making the same points, either, but there is a chance the pummelee is not as dense as, og, gum or magellen02 and can be taught. The rest complain about being piled on.

11

Pile-ons can be a problem, but what of those posters who feel the same way as a previous poster? Are they to be silenced just because their opinion happens to co-incide with anothers? Then it becomes a “first under the wire gets to opine, everybody else is out of luck” deal, which also stifles discourse. How different do you have to make your opinion before it qualifies as not-piling on?

12

No. Again, the only time that’s a problem is when someone picks up on all the me-toos and holds them up as evidence that something is wrong with the person at the bottom of the pile. I’m sure you’ve seen the argument that basically says, “You know, if so many people think you’re an idiot/jackass/troll/, then maybe you should pause to consider whether they’re right.” It’s a very basic and very lame fallacy of appeal.

Well, I don’t like me-too posts, and I try to avoid them myself. I like to add at least a different reason or something. When I’m reading threads I don’t post in, I don’t like seeing a long string of same-same. The first guy made the point already. And actually, I think me-too posts are either prohibited or frowned upon in the Pit. They’re the same basic thing as pulling-up-a-lawn-chair or getting-the-popcorn posts. But me-toos in the form of pile-ons seem to flourish.

13

No argument with that. Although sometimes they’re right. :smiley:

14

That could seperate the trolls from the serious posters tho. Someone who really believes (their provocative OP) would at least try to respond to each. A true troll would just keep saying “yeah, but liberals still suck.” ad naseum.

15

You leave Og out of this!

16

Then there’s this version:
Poster A: All truly patriotic citizens are conservatives!

Poster B: How can you say that? Conservatives all want to chop down our forests and dam up the canyons and create new oil spills. What’s patriotic about that?

Poster A: Where do you think the word “conservation” comes from? Whatever. I’m really talking about patriotism in the sense of allegiance to the form of government, not the goodness or badness of this or that policy decision.

Poster C: Conservatives suck. They aren’t patriots. They want to pollute our rivers and pump emissions gases into our skies.

Poster A: I really don’t want to debate environmentalism in this thread. Anyone want to debate about whether the people who value our form of government are always going to end up being conservatives, because I say that they are.

Poster D: Like yeah, man, why don’t you go club another baby seal for the conservatives’ club.

Poster E: You say patriotic people are conservatives, but if that were true all the patriotic people would have trashed the place and there wouldn’t be anything green left and how can you be patriotic in a storm of acid rain?

etc

I see this sometimes when some issue prompts a common emotional association for a lot of other people, and the pile-on takes the form of poster after poster ignoring the pilee’s protestation that this isn’t an aspect of the issue that they want to engage.

17

Emphasis added:

But in your hypothetical it’s unlikely that any of those things are true- it’s more likely that they all really did think Poster A was an idiot. It might help if you could give an example where this really happened. Maybe I just don’t notice, but I don’t see this happening much if at all.

18

No. I won’t give examples. They’re not only too interpretive, they’re more inciteful than insightful. People can say, as you did, “Hey, Poster A deserved that one.” Which is the whole point. Nobody piles on people they like unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. And very few people will step in to defend someone not popular to their cause.

19

Hmmmm. I don’t think I have anything else to contribute to this thread.

20

It’s a fallacy if people argue that you are wrong simply because a large number of people think you’re an idiot &c. however if all of those people successfully point out the idiocy of your arguments using balanced, reasonable, and supported proofs then it’s no longer a ‘fallacy’ and more a case of ‘overwhelming evidence’.