Kill the Culture and Burn the Pulpit Part 2: Cultural Change

[The Wizard]

And I was told that the gestalt that formed around him was actually individualism.  If that's the case, than any activity from anyone, ever is "individualism", even in groups.

I concede.  The individual is powerless, because the term is a meaningless word for a grab-bag of different behaviors that have nothing to do with it, and therefore we just spin as little tiny cogs in a great big machine, until we break and are replaced.

Okay, then. Explain how a person is able to cause widespread change without some help and without an individual or group of individuals becoming leaders, even if in only a symbolic sense. Be my guest, cause I could do this shit own my own, I would.

[Doktor Howl]

And I was told that the gestalt that formed around him was actually individualism.  If that's the case, than any activity from anyone, ever is "individualism", even in groups.

I concede.  The individual is powerless, because the term is a meaningless word for a grab-bag of different behaviors that have nothing to do with it, and therefore we just spin as little tiny cogs in a great big machine, until we break and are replaced.

Okay, then. Explain how a person is able to cause widespread change without some help and without an individual or group of individuals becoming leaders, even if in only a symbolic sense. Be my guest, cause I could do this shit own my own, I would.

PRETTY SURE THAT WAS MY FUCKING ARGUMENT.

The leaders are acting as alphas, or individuals in this case.  The followers are acting as a group.  Nobody here seems to be able to accept that, because it's not "correct" to state that there are some times when acting as a group is a good thing.

[The Wizard]

PRETTY SURE THAT WAS MY FUCKING ARGUMENT.

The leaders are acting as alphas, or individuals in this case.  The followers are acting as a group.  Nobody here seems to be able to accept that, because it's not "correct" to state that there are some times when acting as a group is a good thing.

Okay. Wait a second. Have we been arguing with each other for the same idea? Cause I swear to god, what you just said is what I've been arguing for.

[Doktor Howl]

PRETTY SURE THAT WAS MY FUCKING ARGUMENT.

The leaders are acting as alphas, or individuals in this case.  The followers are acting as a group.  Nobody here seems to be able to accept that, because it's not "correct" to state that there are some times when acting as a group is a good thing.

Okay. Wait a second. Have we been arguing with each other for the same idea? Cause I swear to god, what you just said is what I've been arguing for.

TOO LATE.  THE "INDIVIDUAL" IS A WORTHLESS DRONE IN A VAST HIVE.

Since you can't be bothered to read my posts, and Charley is arguing just for the sake of arguing, I'm done posting constructively.

[The Wizard]

Fine. Whatever floats your boat, Dok. If you want to, get pissed off over a misunderstanding. I just posted this to get some feedback and maybe stir up some conversation, not to start a war over minutiae.

[Doktor Howl]

Fine. Whatever floats your boat, Dok. If you want to, get pissed off over a misunderstanding. I just posted this to get some feedback and maybe stir up some conversation, not to start a war over minutiae.

I can't help it.  Groupthink™ controls my every move.

[Doktor Howl]

Forgot to put a  there.

[Adios]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

[Doktor Howl]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

[Adios]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

Certainly not. I am saying it wears many guises.

[Adios]

And to add to this a GROUP of like minded individuals has more influence than a single individual.

[Doktor Howl]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

Certainly not. I am saying it wears many guises.

So every human behavior is individualistic?

Because that's what the argument LOOKS like, given the example.

[Adios]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

Certainly not. I am saying it wears many guises.

So every human behavior is individualistic?

Because that's what the argument LOOKS like, given the example.

Of course not, at times in our history many individuals have chosen to walk in the same direction, thereby forming a group. Every member of the group has individually opted to walk in that direction because of a visionary. I will not deny the Alpha syndrome, it is unavoidable as 95% of the people are followers.

I will maintain that a leader without followers can easily be dismissed.

[Doktor Howl]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

Certainly not. I am saying it wears many guises.

So every human behavior is individualistic?

Because that's what the argument LOOKS like, given the example.

Of course not, at times in our history many individuals have chosen to walk in the same direction, thereby forming a group. Every member of the group has individually opted to walk in that direction because of a visionary. I will not deny the Alpha syndrome, it is unavoidable as 95% of the people are followers.

I will maintain that a leader without followers can easily be dismissed.

But...You just made two contradictory arguments.

I give up.  I'm not getting in a pissing contest over this, but I'm not going to argue semantics for their own sake, either.  See you in another thread.

[Adios]

Dammit Dok.

A leader without followers is just a person walking alone. Followers without a leader wander in all directions aimlessly. Can you not see the co-dependency here?

Do you think the Government would have passed civil rights without all the followers scaring the hell out of their re-election chances?

So are you saying that individualism is impossible?

Certainly not. I am saying it wears many guises.

So every human behavior is individualistic?

Because that's what the argument LOOKS like, given the example.

Of course not, at times in our history many individuals have chosen to walk in the same direction, thereby forming a group. Every member of the group has individually opted to walk in that direction because of a visionary. I will not deny the Alpha syndrome, it is unavoidable as 95% of the people are followers.

I will maintain that a leader without followers can easily be dismissed.

But...You just made two contradictory arguments.

I give up.  I'm not getting in a pissing contest over this, but I'm not going to argue semantics for their own sake, either.  See you in another thread.

Fine. Also I don't see the contradiction.