It is not an actual thing.
But let’s avoid taking pokes at other posters in this forum.
People don’t generally say “butthurt” about themselves. It’s a childish insult used whenever the other person is an asshole, and they want to pretend that it’s the person getting upset who is the bad guy. Why would I have any reason to assume you were talking about yourself?
I already mentioned that went through a bunch of posts in that thread. You were egging on the other poster as much as they were egging you on. They were getting upset at you as much as you were at them.
So either both of you deserved moderation, or neither of you did.
My chamber doesn’t echo due to sound dampening, but it sure traps the farts in. I should get an exhaust fan.
Do you also think there is no conservative right wing hive mind or are the right wingers all brain washed sheeple while left wingers are all independent thinkers?
Yes.
As a more serious answer, I don’t think that there is any universal generality about any large political category.
When you use “hive mind” here, it just means you have already lost any argument.
I could not agree more.
I often have to remind myself, in certain threads on a small number of topics, that there are several posters (a very small, but not zero) number of posters who will jump in and contribute nothing but intentionally provocative posts. And I remind myself that I shouldn’t fall for it and respond.
I guess it’s not actually trolling, but it’s pretty borderline.
That’s what sheeple would say.
Maybe by reading what I wrote and not interpreting it in the worst light possible.
Yes, it escalated. I can’t tell you you have to start reading from the first post on but this is the first time in the thread I can find myself responding to GIGO:
And this is his first response to me:
what is the point of the “/s” or prefacing a statement with the comment “as usual…”
And this sort of thing is repeated for several responses before I start getting short with GIGO. But the escalation was not by me and my response was not immediate, I let it go for a few posts before it started to get annoying.
So, yes. By the end, there is no real difference but if someone stepped in early on when the sniping started it might never have gotten there. It’s not like I have not tried to flag posts that start us down this road but I have received responses from various moderators in various threads effectively telling me to sit down, shut up and just take it until someone actually crosses a line. I’m saying that perhaps it would make sense to cut off this sort of sniping before it crosses the line.
If post 246 is NOT his first post then I will take another look but I almost never instigate this sort of shit because I know that this board tilts in one direction and turning GD into the pit only works against non-woke opinions.
Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but as a self-professed moderate (a fascist according to my more liberal friends and a communist to my more conservative friends) I can tell you that neither side seems to be full of independent thinkers. They all seem to get their opinions from others that already think like them and the resonance builds up until it’s all echo and no sound.
I don’t recall ever using the hie mind notion as the basis for any argument I have made. I use it to characterize a certain group and in it seems to serve well in that function because the people who are members of that group seem to know who they are.
You see the same thing on some conservative boards where most of the posters are somewhere between good and OK and there are a few posters that pull this shit and noone calls them on it because they are aligned with the mainstream of the board.
Just a note here, the forum software collapses the cite until you click on it. so it makes the “Yep, not evil, stupid” line to sound as I’m directing it to the poster, the “Yep, not evil, just stupid.” is a reply to this:
Speaking in general, it is really not good to dismiss more educated opinions with accusations that are based on reports from partizan sources. That is why me and others in the past in this message board realize that when launching those accusations against cited people the one making the accusation needs a cite from better sources.
Sorry, if you are using “hive mind” or “echo chamber” to characterize people on this board it is a simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits. It’s the board equivalent of Godwin’s Law. Once you invoke it, you have lost the argument. I have never seen a poster who was an effective debater resort to these characterizations. It just serves to lose you any credibility you might have had.
This whole post has no rational basis (and is also very self-serving).
I find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe in abstract that overwhelming dominance of one particular viewpoint among a particular group has no impact on the dynamic of the group’s discussions of that viewpoint. And once you accept that it has an impact on the dynamic, then it will be relevant in many contexts. So the notion that any mention of it amounts to an admission of anything etc. has no basis at all. I believe you’re just using this as a rhetorical gambit.
You mean, like “hive mind”? 
“Hive mind” is used as an insult to denigrate the integrity of all opposing viewpoints. It indicates that no one else but you has any independence of thought. Insulting all your opponents at once is not really a tactic that gets you any credibility.
It could theoretically be used that way, but that’s not the only usage. It could also be used in other ways, and is particularly relevant when discussing matters such as the impact of the overwhelming dominance of one particular viewpoint in a group discussion (or the desirability of such). That is a topic which happens to come up a lot on this MB.
Declaring that any usage of the term is intended to mean that “no else but you has any independence of thought” when this is manifestly not always the case is a self-serving way of forestalling a line of argument that you would prefer to not deal with substantively.
That’s pretty much the only usage I have ever seen here. It’s not used in dispassionate discussion; it is used as a deliberate insult to the integrity of other posters.
It is possible to discuss the effect of being a minority viewpoint on a message board. But there is really no legitimate reason to use the term “hive mind.” As I said, this is a term that is really only used to insult people on the opposing side of your argument. It really has no place here.
Interestingly, a search on ATMB for that term seems to show that most references to the term are by those who are attacking the usage. But here’s the most recent usage by someone who genuinely used used the term.
To be clear, I certainly agree that the term has a certain snarkiness even when used substantively. But in that sense, it’s well within the accepted levels of snarkiness that often accompanies substantive discussion on this MB. And at any rate, what I’m objecting to is that it’s a “simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits” as you claimed. It’s frequently adding a bit of snark to a substantive point, which is extraordinarily common and accepted on this MB, from posters and moderators alike.
You make my point for me. He used it to be dismissive of opposing viewpoints.