Talk:Mobocracy

	This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Ochlocracy

Is mobocracy even a word? I thought the proper term was ochlocracy. I just assumed Andy was dumbing it down for his students. ollïegrïnd 07:00, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, the WP entry for Ochlocracy says "In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym", so it seems to be a relatively accepted dumbed-down version. --Sid 08:01, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Andy was always anti-quotemine because it was only "sometimes used". How does mobocracy get a pass? Jrssr5 09:58, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I assume the explanation would be along the lines of "We at CP do not believe in political correctness and call things by their names. Ochlocracy is a liberal attempt at finding a more obscure term to deceive others into thinking their tactics are somehow justified. Look it up in a dictionary and see if you can find ochlocracy there!" --Sid 10:15, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Makes sense, I seem to recall him thinking websters was biased as well. Jrssr5 10:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Several CP sysops seem have a slight aversion against dictionaries and still try to use them to back their view of reality. Roger with his definition of "consensus", Andy with his definition of "animal", Karajou when it came to questioning the reliability of a dictionary site... but they connect "anti-intellectual" with WP, it's hilarious. --Sid 10:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

And my God, you're right. His dictionary fetish started fairly early, even: "A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called Merriam-Webster criticizes some entries in the dictionary." (Andy, Feb 20, on cp:Talk:Faith)

And later on, he basically asserts that CP is better than a dictionary: "Those [note: quoted dictionary definitions of "liberal"] are lovely euphemisms that have virtually no basis in political reality. We define liberal as it really is." (Andy, March 27 on cp:Talk:BBC). --Sid 10:57, 18 July 2007 (CDT) who once again lost faith in humanity

This isn't a mobocracy. It's an ultra-democracy. Everyone has an equal say. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{'is a puerile idiot'} 20:47, 4 February 2009 (EST)

The discussion of how it came to be used on RW

Too bad we don't have a link to that... ħuman 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care Mobs

Shouldn't there be anything mentioning the anti-health care mob rule. Ghy213 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But they're not really "ruling" anything, are they, mostly just making bigger asses of themselves? ħuman 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the definition of ruling mean "exercising controlling or governing authority",well I do see some kind of governing authority. Ghy213 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to confess that I lack the energy to click all the links to follow the point. Though I suppose that living in a society which already has effective state health care rather reduces my interest as well.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

At ghy, I don't see how going to thesee "town hall meeting" to speak up is "exercising controlling or governing authority". ħuman 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You left out vandalizing building with Swastika and giving out death threats. And they do identified thyself as the mob just go to 00:54 in this video

Yes, they are a mob. But they aren't running anything, they are just, well, rioting, I guess. ħuman 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I alright you win. Ghy213 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any for this

Mobocracies can work, and work well, but my experience with RL mobocracies shows that they never conform to any one person's ideal of how a mobocracy ought to work. Even in a small mob with a stable responsible membership, there will usually be one or a few people who assume leadership roles; if the rest of the members do not accept that, then HCM or group breakup can ensue. Mobs with open membership are vulnerable to disruption by troublemakers, who may be actively seeking the group's destruction, or just having their own kind of fun. A mob may or may not right itself after a trying episode; there are no guarantees.

The more rules and policies a mob applies to itself, the further it steps away from "true" mobocracy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is they tend to end up with he who shouts the loudest wins ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wins what? My mobocracy experience includes group housing for five dozen or three score (pay the mortgage, feed ourselves, keep the furnace running and the plumbing tight) as well as "leaderless" musical groups. In those cases, there was a job to be done. The need to stay connected with an external reality is more tenous in something like an online debating society. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony...

With her "Tyranny of Structurelessness", Jo Freeman has "owned the lefties" from inside much more effectively than any liberturdrian or anti-SJW alt-right dumbass... Especially when the negative responses she received were weak Appealings to shame (Howard J. Elrich: "your essay had a negative impact on anarchism, how dare you!"), arguments ad naumeam/tautologies (Cathy Levine, "The tyranny of the tyranny") or just personal attacks (Jason McQuinn gaslighted her as an "schizophrenic paranoid"). Just fine to see the left crumbling inside due to eternal infights and putiry spirals, instead by cringe-worthy biggots "debunking" it... Nitrato de Chile (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile