jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (23 posts)

Is Mass Delusion Real?

  1. Peoplebranch profile image65
    Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago

    Two weeks ago, I posted the following:

    Imagine your favorite sport team is 300 point down and there is just five minutes left of the game; the most any fan could hope for in this scenario is for the losing team to reduce the loss margin. You would agree there is absolutely no strategy a coach could come up with to change the outcome of the game, would you not? I would add that not even a miracle could change it.

    That was an excerpt from an article (The Bernie Sanders Delusion Strategy published on peoplebranch.org) Bernie’s supporters (or Bernizens as referred to in Bernie City) decided to boycott on Postwaves simply because the article was not favorable to Bernie. However, the article was an analysis of the then state of affairs which clearly pointed to the fact that Bernie had no chance to overtake Hillary.

    Since Most (if not all)Bernizens reacted the same way, could that be construed as Mass Delusion?

    1. 81
      Hxprofposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Not sure about Mass Delusion, but I conjecture that it could be construed simply as denial, denial on a mass scale.

      1. Peoplebranch profile image65
        Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        semantics dance? or is there an actual difference between the two expressions?

        1. 81
          Hxprofposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          I think there's a difference.  Someone can convince themselves of something that's not true (delusion) or someone can be in denial of a reality - they subconsciously KNOW the reality is true, but they won't bring themselves to consciously acknowledge it.

          1. Peoplebranch profile image65
            Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the clarification

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Or could it be delusional to think winning the Presidency is the only way to change the country? Without a movement set on course it will never be possible and stopping short because it did not materialize on others time tables would be equally short sighted. The system has been running its course for over 200 years and the set way we do things cannot be overturned in a moment. Bernie's followers are only too aware of the odds yet they want to make an impact on the machine that denies access to be heard. That is why he continues and many reject Billary because with her nothing will change.

      1. Peoplebranch profile image65
        Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Be it on purpose or subconsciously you referred to Bernie's supporters as followers which may be the root of the "mass delusion".
        You made a good point in your comment but is it bad to yearn for changes; where does one begin? how long would one need to wait for the movement to take hold? Is the movement dead with Hillary's nomination?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          The movement may not be dead with her nomination, but it would be slowed to a crawl. We, that support Bernie, do not feel we are delusionary, but support  the only candidate who has clean hands in the face of the issues that need to be addressed in a serious way and not just co-opted.

          With Bernie not throwing in the towel, we can pressure the Clinton camp to deal with the issues and make concession to those on her left flank that have excited the Bernie crowd.

          1. Peoplebranch profile image65
            Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Is there any plan to carry the Revolution forward? After all, an important revolution such as this requires that someone keeps the movement going in order to force changes.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

              By having HC select someone that is a no nonsense integrity keeper like Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, it would help keep the flame alit that would otherwise burn out.

              Warren is authentic, passionate and outspoken and not anybody's syncophant. She would not be HC's rubber stamp and would add credibility to many of us in the party that believe that she  is too close and cozy with the big money changing industries on Wall Street to rage a credible fight against them.

              We have to start somewhere, the current situation with Clinton at the helm is far more palatable than Trump.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          No it was on purpose as the people who have been in Bernie's camp have been with him on his philosophy and not a platform as a platform is a phony delusional facade fabricated to confuse people into thinking a candidate will follow through on its' directives. Bernie offers some solutions but it is more a direction rather than a set method. His main message is to cause a political revolution of ideas away from the mainstream failures we have been following for years. His message is we are the difference and not him.

          1. Peoplebranch profile image65
            Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            For those who do not know, I am a Bernie fan for all those reasons you mentioned; however, as a journalist, my writing has to reflect reality of the matter at hand. I wrote a number of articles (Bernie Sanders Is The Real Deal) where I made the case that the country should elect Bernie but my words alone cannot make it happen. So, when it was obvious there is no path for Bernie to win the nomination, I stated so.
            Your comment is spot on.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I too am a Bernie supporter for all of the reasons I have mentioned. I too am a vehement anti-Hillary protester for all of the historical evidence of her untrustworthy character. I think a Trump Presidency will be fraught with senseless bickering and wasted time on Bravado rather than issue driven battles. I will prove I am not a Democrat by writing in Bernie. It is not a throw away vote as voting for either of the other two is a step backwards and I just don't need to "Win" to prove I am right in my convictions.

              1. Peoplebranch profile image65
                Peoplebranchposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                My view is slightly different; not to vote for either is to silence your own voice. Hillary being untrustworthy cannot be a disqualifier. ALL politicians are untrustworthy; she is not any more so than others. In fact, because of that, she most likely will try to prove herself.
                I am currently doing research to understand why she is seen so untrustworthy while all other politicians are given a pass

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Silenced only in the terms of this broken system. Hillary has been caught by her own words lying and has contradicted herself on record numerous times as well. Voting for either would only contribute to the hypocrisy that this system works and provides justice to its' citizens. While Trump is a wildcard I know what Hillary stands for, herself. Voting for either also justifies the poor choices these two parties have the audacity to proffer to us. I would rather the system suffer a breakdown and rebuild from there rather than stand on this cesspool of inequality.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13054193.jpg

                    12,000 dollar coat .
                    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13054195.jpg

                    New image .

                  2. Peoplebranch profile image65
                    Peoplebranchposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    For almost three years, I have been pushing the idea of a fourth (4th) branch with sole, unique, main and only purpose is to attend to the business of the people; in the https://peoplebranch.org/about-2/ of my blog, I provide some details. Take a look and let's begin a revolution

  2. WordCrafter09 profile image85
    WordCrafter09posted 6 months ago

    I don't necessarily think the sports/single-game analogy is the best one to make in this case because in sports a single game is just that - a single game that will end.  Fans are spectators and have no affect on the outcome.  With the article/"Sanders Thing" you mention (although people are individuals and one can't assume anything about their individual motivations), those people know that they aren't just spectators and that for as long as they "exist" as group their non-spectator role serves one or a number of different purposes, including sending a message.  From what I've heard, there many of those people who would either not-vote or else vote for Donald Trump (because they want some big shake-up to go on with the way things are/have been being done).  An election isn't just entertainment for the them, or some game (the way it may be for some people who see it as "just entertainment"  or as "just a game").

    Although I certainly can't read minds about why some people would do that boycott, one guess is that they were offended by the use of the word, "delusion" in the title.  Just because someone doesn't agree with someone else's reasons for doing something it doesn't mean those other people are delusional.  There are other ways to raise points about this one individual's apparent strategy.  There is also, however, recognizing that besides Sanders, himself;  those supporters may well have their own plans/strategies (which may include, say, voting for the other party or not voting at all and/or which may include, say, not dumping someone who remains in the race).

    Throwing around belittling names that suggest people don't know what they're doing and/or somehow out of touch with reality just because they won't buckle under to thinking that hasn't gotten anyone all that far says more about the mindset of anyone who would use belittling terms than it does anyone who sees some sense/strategy in their own choices.

    Many people who haven't happened to do a lot of reading on subjects like psychology or social issues "just because they're writers and/or just because those are subjects that interest them" may not even be aware that someone uses what amounts to name-calling/labeling to define someone else, that's "mental/emotional" abuse.   I'd guess there's a good chance that people who decided to boycott found it offensive that with the click of some keys someone chose to create a title/article that was demeaning to Sanders and/or his supporters.  Then, too, there are plenty of people who have done all kinds of reading about social issues and who, because of that, know exactly and immediately the signs of someone who doesn't respect someone else.

    Sometimes people don't always have a name for what comes across as demeaning/insulting, but most (regardless of what they've read or not read) know it when they see it and/or feel it.  I don't happen to count myself among those Sanders supporters, but for anyone to suggest that they're deluded and/or in denial is just another example of how clueless people so often name-call when they don't/won't see someone who thinks/does differently from them (for their own reasons and with their perfectly fine reasoning ability) as capable, reasonable, individuals.  I'd guess that a whole lot of Sanders supporters have already had enough of that belittling cr*p coming from all directions; so, if nothing else, they can boycott something that allows/engages in behavior that people who know/use words for a living should know/choose better than to engage in.

    Maybe boycotting someone/something that a whole lot of people haven't even heard of seems like a little thing to some; but, no, I don't think it's a matter of "mass delusion" or "denial".  More likely it's a matter of the very human, healthy and normal reaction of people who aren't big fans of insulting words that essentially amount of "mass insulting"..


    (This post is so long it occurred to me to, maybe, turn it into a Hub; but I don't write about politics and can't be bothered looking up extra stuff/capsule material, references, etc. in order to make what is nothing more than my opinion into something more "legitimate" and informative.).

    1. Peoplebranch profile image65
      Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I must say you did a great job "dancing with words" in an attempt not to sound insulting while making the point that I was. Without mounting any defense for the use of the word - I still support its use in the context of the article - suffice to say that the definition itself warrants its use (although I do acknowledge the word could indeed be construed as insulting) but if one reads the whole article it would become obvious; thus the question I asked in this forum: is Mass Delusion real?
      I do admire you for the effort you put not to sound as insensitive as the article.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image87
    PrettyPantherposted 6 months ago

    What you insultingly call "mass delusion" is merely political strategy.

    1. Peoplebranch profile image65
      Peoplebranchposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      possibly

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Sanders is meeting with Democratic leaders all day today.  Not possibly, surely.

 
working