Why the urge to be Shiny Happy People.

Case one. 

Lady doesn't want people fishing under her dock. She is a bit of a bitch about it and goes on a tirade. Local fishermen decide to punish her. Everyone thinks it's the greatest thing in the world.  Don't get me wrong, the lady is in the wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. It just makes everyone involved look like a bitchy little child. 

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/sports/2019/03/23/who-owns-water-disputes-between-property-owners-and-anglers-common/3213718002/

Case 2. 

Vegan lady doesn't like the BBQ smell blowing in her back yard from the neighbors. She claims it's deliberate. She takes it to court and loses. Now the local meat eaters think it's a great idea to have a huge BBQ at her house. Something like 4000 people have said they will attend. Again, I don't agree with her decision to take it to court but why escalate?

https://nypost.com/2019/09/04/thousands-to-attend-bbq-outside-home-of-vegan-who-sued-neighbors-over-smelly-meats/

There sure is a lot of childishness in the world today. It's pretty sad to see. 

I wish I knew. Not to cause a flounder with such a pretty fishing picture, but there seems to be a certain meanness going about recently

mad_machine said:

...there seems to be a certain meanness going about recently

This is a good way to put it. I don't think it's a top down thing. It looks more bottom up to me. 

mad_machine said:

I wish I knew. Not to cause a flounder with such a pretty fishing picture, but there seems to be a certain meanness going about recently

IMHO, a lot of that meanness has come from a tribal (are or not part of my group) thing.  Especially when there are many instances where people take mistakes very personally, as if someone's going in intention was to slight them.  When case 1 may just want fish, and case 2 probably just wants grilled meat.

Edited. 

In reply to alfadriver :

But is it tribal before it goes viral on social media? I would say it's personal between two people until one decides to "get even" and posts on social media to get their "tribe" involved. 

In both cases, the "winner" is the party that escalates. That makes no sense to me. 

It was the coldest winter ever.  Many animals died because of the cold.
The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm.
This way they covered and protected themselves, but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. 

After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen.

So, they had to make a choice: accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth.  Wisely, they decided to get back together and work it out.  They learned to live with the little wounds caused by their close relationship in order to stay warm and survive.

When you own the "insert other tribe here" you get more likeviewkarma on the facetwittubeforum.

In both cases, there was an individual that wanted others to curb their legal and commonly accepted activities to suit their whims, and escalated the issue even though they were incorrect.

In case one, the property owner violated Florida 379.105: Harassment of hunters, trappers, or fishers, and committed assault.

In case two, the individual took their case to court.

When you escalate, you reap what you sow.

Also, in regards to tribes, you're overlooking that societal peer pressure and shaming have been used since before recorded history to show shiny happy people that they're being shiny happy people. 

In reply to (not) WilD (Matt) :

Maybe that's it. Mob mentality without the physical mob. When you are shouting into a echo chamber, everything sounds like a good idea.

Counterpoint:

Why the urge to be whiny little bitches?

Case one :

Old hag doesn't want people fishing. 

Case two :

Vegan doesn't want people enjoying grilled meat. 

Toyman01 said:

mad_machine said:

...there seems to be a certain meanness going about recently

This is a good way to put it. I don't think it's a top down thing. It looks more bottom up to me. 

 

I disagree. I mean, you have a city council of a very large and prominent city that decides to label over 5 million law abiding americans as domestic terrorists publicly. You have people running for the highest political office wanting to gut the Constitution publicly. And all of those are the "if you're not with us 100% then you're the enemy" mentality. 

I am so ready for my private island or mountain....... so tired of people in general at this point. 

Brett_Murphy said:

Also, in regards to tribes, you're overlooking that societal peer pressure and shaming have been used since before recorded history to show shiny happy people that they're being shiny happy people. 

While that's the case, I do get the impression that the mobs are getting louder and bigger. Maybe just louder to make themselves look bigger.

In reply to RealMiniNoMore :

There are always those that want to control others. It's apparently human nature.

Both cases were pretty much handled until the winning party decided they needed to be even louder whiny bitches. I just don't understand why. Nothing was accomplished from this other than showing which party can sink to the lowest level quickest. 

In reply to BoxheadTim :

I think that mobs are getting more coverage in the 24 hour news cycle. More than that, I think that coverage of mobs is being used to cultivate the Us vs. Them mentality that benefits flounder flounder flounder flounder...

flounder...

Toyman01 said:

Edited. 

In reply to alfadriver :

But is it tribal before it goes viral on social media? I would say it's personal between two people until one decides to "get even" and posts on social media to get their "tribe" involved. 

In both cases, the "winner" is the party that escalates. That makes no sense to me. 

 

Yes, I do think it's tribal before it gets to social media- as that's where it becomes personal right out of the box.  The first step of "getting even" is before it even goes fully public.

For both cases, both sides are somewhat wrong.  

Case one- does anyone really need to fish under her dock?  No.  They can easily keep off of her property.  The problem is that she takes it personally and then takes the nuclear option without just talking (I'm assuming that, as we don't really have a full story- just the outline).

Case two- could you adjust the grill to be nice?  Highly likely.  But, again, the tribal nature of the argument means one side escalates it fully before just talking.  Again, I don't think we really have the full story.

And it's interesting how posters here immediately took sides in their posts- and then extended the tribe thing as tribes against their tribe.  Nobody wants to take the first step in the process of healing, and at least taking on part of the responsibility of the disagreement.  

In reply to Toyman01 :

Don't get me wrong, I agree they were shiny happy people on both sides.

It's just a shame that society has allowed whiners to get away with so much, recently. 

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm not sure where we are in our current society it CAN be fixed nor anyone WANTS to fix it. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Be the change you want to see in the world.

There is still a lot of good in the world, it just doesn't sell news like poo-flinging.

One of my theories is that certain people (most?, some?) have a particular need for a "religion".  By religion I mean something to believe in, something to fight for.  Of course, historically, a lot of this need was taken up by actual religion.  It appears those needs have shifted.  One example that can be seen are what might be called Radical Vegans.  Their dietary needs seemed to have crossed over in to a religious zeal. E.g. you don't want to eat meat, but you cannot eat anything that was prepared where meat was prepared?  Really?  Like any meat substance is poisonous to you?

Many other example could be given (sports fanatics are an easy one), some of which are so extreme they are willing to hurt others in the defense of their "tribe".  Social media (an even regular media) is of course (what the military calls) a Force Multiplier for this.  Allowing one or a few people to have far more influence then they otherwise might.

I, personally, have never had any religious or worship needs.  I don't have any particular strong alignments to anything.  I don't worship any sports teams, I don't have any heroes, I certainly don't get enthusiastic about any politician.  I don't know if I am in the minority, but I do know my "tribe" is not terribly vocal (pretty much by definition).

In reply to aircooled :

I have known a few people I like to call "Evangelical Atheists". They're like the Radical Vegans where they dont believe in [insert preferred version of god here] and they will actively work so no one else does either. I've never understood the need to dictate what others think and feel, buth then again I've always been a "leave me alone,I leave you alone and we are all happy" type person. 

I think compassion, sympathy, empathy, and compromise are all things that are are hard to do and most people don’t take the time, especially when strangers are involved. Shoot, it’s hard enough for me to practice those things in order to maintain a strong relationship with the people I’m close with, like with my wife and kid.

I do believe social media culture makes it worse.

Also, what kind of person has the time to go to court over something like meat smells? I wish I had that much extra time and energy.

bobzilla said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm not sure where we are in our current society it CAN be fixed nor anyone WANTS to fix it. 

I think it can be fixed.  It's a matter of the sides wanting to fix it.  And I do mean both sides.

Not to make this political, but one of the worst things that ever happened was when George Bush said "NO NEW TAXES", which set him up for an epic thrashing when he compromised.  That era seems to be when compromise became a dirty word.

ShawnG said:

It was the coldest winter ever.  Many animals died because of the cold.
The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm.
This way they covered and protected themselves, but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. 

After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen.

So, they had to make a choice: accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth.  Wisely, they decided to get back together and work it out.  They learned to live with the little wounds caused by their close relationship in order to stay warm and survive.

 

It was the coldest winter ever.  Many animals died because of the cold.
The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm.
This way they covered and protected themselves, but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. 

After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen.

So, they had to make a choice: accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth.  Wisely, they decided to get back together and work it out.  They learned to live with the little wounds caused by their close relationship in order to stay warm and survive.

In reply to aircooled :

Re need for religion -

I think you're onto something. It's much easier to find someone you like and do what they say than it is to think of what to do on your own. That might even be a human 'survival instinct' developed over millions of years.

But I also think in general people are good, and we are getting better. The idiots get more news coverage, of course.