Holy crap.
I think if it’s good enough for the NY Times, it counts as an actual word.
I stand by what I said. In my personal opinion, when you use the word on this board, you lose any credibility with regard to your argument.
Well, your personal opinion is not of much value then is it? You have just hand waved away a debate because of your feels. Yet you accuse the other person of having no credibility.
Pot meet kettle.
I’m just not interested in having a “debate” with anyone who resorts to such nonsense as “hive mind.”
Groupthink is a legitimate thing. “Hive Mind” is the same thing if a bit more snarky.
I am looking forward to another hand-waving summary dismissal and wondering how long it will take you to realize you have become the thing you claim to not want to be.
{…} in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. {…}
Thankfully there no snark in that part of the snippet!
If you click through to the article they have citations.
I retract the second-half of that sentence. I cannot claim to know what @Colibri does or does not want to be.
Do they use it in their actual news coverage, or just in opinion columns written by others, such as the one you linked to?
From the wikipedia article:
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Heh, one poster earlier actually made the argument that since others are silent when not jumping to defend me it means that he was right. 
I do think that one flaw in your argument here is that it is not taking into account that we are dealing with a lot of bubbles out there (just remember the past election) with some positions that remain opinions, and some of those bubbles work at rejecting facts or expert opinion. Some then come to make discussions over here who actually want to make a forum -that they declare before hand that is against them- to conform to their group think.
IMHO, one way out is to look at the best evidence and sources to figure out if something is supposed to be the way things are. Sad thing here is that in a previous example I noticed that there are items where I agree with an opponent, but just agreeing with one thing is not enough for some, they do think that it should all their way or the highway. Some do want to think that then ignoring other evidence and expert opinions is the beesnees. The issue here is that no one should trust just in just the opinion from an anonymous person in a message board, not even me. Hence the well understood bit here about presenting cites and asking for cites.
The cites, or lack of them, does have one interesting property: it reveals then if an opponent does modify or reflects about the sources they use, and others can also judge if the cites are just coming from an uneducated bubble.
Do you not possess the ability to research things on your own?
Of course I do. But it’s up to the person making the claim to back it up.
And no, I do not consider a link to somebody else’s opinion to be worth anything, let alone authoritative.
But that misses what else others can see with their reactions to more educated opinions.
A different poster has gone to efforts into turning Critical Race Theory into a caricature that is also an all powerful conspiracy. It was claimed that Asians did not use CRT as it was just a black or Hispanic thing and that CRT ignored China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, so a link was produced to a paper where an Asian researcher actually used the CRT framework to criticize the treatment of the Uyghurs. Just a dismissal came from linking to that.
Now, it could had been argued that the sociology paper was an opinion, but that was not the point, the point was to show that it was wrong to declare a framework as just a tool for Blacks, and it was wrong to say that the Uyghurs were ignored by their “enemy”.
You’re the one making the claim.
FTR, the dictionaries disagree with you. Even if they’re not ready to include it yet, they are aware of its increasing usage (and usage is all that makes a word an “actual word”)
I run a broom-closet industry. It’s a lot smaller. I lease a tiny, dusty corner in the back ot the cottage. All day long I weave the veils with which Dopers conceal their insults. I got all colors. I got herringbone veils. I got new tartans, stripes… you name it. Talk to me… I’ll take care of ya…
I had a look in the thread and I think you misinterpreted what ZS was saying. He was saying we should judge CRT by the results, not by what proponents say they are doing - in the same way we don’t trust what China says they are doing with the Uyghurs.
I’ll add this to my file of evidence for why we should teach linguistics to children to fight general ignorance of how language works
Ironic thing is that the quoted words were not aimed at the Czar or at czarists, or even capitalists or such. They were aimed at people who had been leading Marxists for years and who had been at the forefront of creating “the flower of our new Soviet nation”. Their ultimate crime was that they fell afoul of the evolving politically correct ideology, but once they did they were judged by the more orthodox Marxists to be guilty of all sorts of other imaginary crimes as well and punishment was demanded.
Of course, as LHOD astutely observed, the sanctions in that case were more severe than being banned from a message board. But the thought process is the same.
You are imputing to me the belief that these terms “are used neutrally” and contain “no snark at all”. This is an example of something all too common on this MB. Not only did I not claim that the terms were not snarky, but I explicitly said that “I certainly agree that the term has a certain snarkiness” and “It’s frequently adding a bit of snark …”.
As I said, this tactic has long been common here, but what’s remarkable in this case is that immediately following your imputation you go on to quote the very section which contradicts it. That’s taking it to a new level, I would think.
This is the type of thing which has been increasingly attracting moderator attention and sanction under the new activist approach, and I’ve seen several posters Warned for distortions far less blatant. Though I don’t think any of those posters were protected by an upgraded Liberal Force Field feature, so there’s that.
Problem is that nowhere does he cite where he does get the idea that CRT is all powerful or being used by the schools or the Attorney General.
The point was clear, as Occam’s razor would tell us, there are more plausible reasons why administrators are willing to make changes, cites that show the claimed results of CRT actually doing the things they do not want are grossly missing. Then one can conclude that they are only going for right wing opinions about a conspiracy then. Going for conspiracy theories is the group think that discredits what they are trying to say.
And he was still wrong about Asians not using CRT or what they say about the Uyghurs.