Jumped into a conversation mid-stream
Understood much less than I thought about the group dynamic
Less substance often earned the biggest applause
If you raised an objection or saw the world differently, you
knew little
At least there was one voice, obnoxious and blunt – yes, but
clear in his thinking, speaking sensibly
Never challenged directly, always subtly and without
substance
Preaching to the choir seemed to work best
Verdict delivered
Keep out, that’s what I have decided
Sounds about normal.
ReplyDeleteDiffering opinion from late comer is rejected by the existing group without effective engagement or dialogue. Perhaps a shortsighted response with a flavor of groupthink?
Resulting in a drawing of lines between those who don't align to our perspective. Again, perhaps a shortsighted response towards an attitude of groupthink?
But alas, an interesting window to human history, in a microcosm.
Perhaps an opportunity for reflection?
Hi Bionic M,
ReplyDeleteRemember me?
Some time back, I concluded a blog rant/defense/apoplectic stroke with these words (it was in relation to something by Hoppe/Block/Kinsella, I cannot remember which now, but will dig it up in due course).....
"I defend liberty, not libertarianism..."
Not every position that is held by scholars/activists is the result of good-faith intellectual query.
Very many are just rationalizations of power positions preferred by the scholar.
Lila Rajiva