William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Expectations Of The Majority

Being in the minority, which those of us of a reactionary bent surely are, is advantageous for one reason: we do not assume: we know where we are, we know who we are. This is not always so for the majority, at least not reflexively.

I mean this in the “statistical” sense, as a stereotype. A majority member meets a person and, without giving it much or any thought, assumes the stranger thinks like he, the majority member. The stranger, unless his dress or circumstance be outré, will be thought to reside among the bien pensant; the stranger will be given the benefit of the doubt and welcomed.

So that if you, dear reader, were to put on ugly, minimalist clothing and slouch into Case Western Reserve University’s new “safe space“, you would be treated as an effeminate thumb-sucking temperamental pantywaist majorityite. If you curled into a ball and tucked yourself in a corner and whispered in horror “Republicans”—for the “safe space” was in honor of that party’s convention, which was held near the university—, you would have been given a lollipop and a Hillary t-shirt and be told that it’s okay to cry.

But now think of two closet reactionaries, or perhaps two conservatives, walking by the “safe space”, perhaps as curious as anthropologists used to be to take a peek inside and witness the strange rituals. “Can it really be true,” these minorityites say to themselves, “that students at an elite college act like frightened women when Trump’s name is mentioned?”

Now if these two minorityites were to meet at the entrance, unless there be some secret signal between these two outcasts, each minority member will assume the other is a member of the majority. This is rational because, not knowing anything else except that (by definition!) most are in the majority, this new person is likely in the majority. Stilted conversations and verbal dancing are therefore the norm on places like college campuses between minority members who aren’t interested in outing themselves.

Well, so much is common human nature. We’re interested here more in majority members who don’t realize they are in the minority per se, folks who are so embedded in the majority culture they assume nearly ever person except the fringeiest (you heard me: fringeist) are with them.

Take the New York Times. Examples abound, but for instance try the article “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming“. The premise is that Thiel is a San Franciscan elite, which is all a majority member should have to know about a man to properly peg that man as being enlightened. The presumption is that all techies are and should be majorityites. Why, just look at Apple! It’s so hip! “How could a conservative write computer code?” is a rhetorical question.

It’s natural to think this, too, because for example San Francisco is home of Twitter, which is ever banning conservative voices. The latest ban is Milo Yiannopoulos, who (it appears) inspired people other than himself to tease a foul-mouthed, white-hating actress (this actress had previously tweeted her disdain of whites, among other things).

Yiannopoulos, who is same-sex attracted, and boasts of it to the point of naming certain acts he enjoys with black men, and who because of his non-reproductive sexual preferences would ordinarily be embraced by the majority. But Yiannopoulos forgot that race trumps sexual desire in victimology cladistics, hence his banishment, hence Cologne, hence Rotterham, hence Munich, hence et cetera et cetera.

Anyway, Twitter whacked his account, as it hasn’t whacked accounts more profane, hateful, and bloodlusting as his but that belong to majority members (as seen at the top of this post; or at the bottom as a link to Twitter if you see this post via email). We might guess that “Jack”, Twitter’s CEO, views himself above these vulgarities, which he surely classes as vulgarities, but views them as being provoked by conservatives like Yiannopoulos and thus forgivable. Jack is so at home in the majority he can’t fathom that Yiannopoulos’s and his followers’ actions are themselves provoked.

A word about conservative. As has been said by others, conservative is defined as the philosophical, political, or cultural view that was held by the majority twenty years ago. That Yiannopoulos and Thiel are now considered conservative gives proof to this homely truth. Monetary utilitarianism is a constant theme for both the majority and conservatives, so in that sense, both are in the majority.

28 Comments

  1. Many of the internet platforms like Twitter were not well thought out. Given complete anonymity, people lack manners and can be vicious. Someone edits out comments deemed inappropriate and that someone quickly develops a God complex about what is “appropriate”. People say and do things they would never do if a person were standing in front of them. It’s easy to threaten and curse out someone who you will never have to face. Cyber bullying was 100% predictable and expected. Destroying the fabric of society seems to be the end game of this entire exercise….

    Now, I have go back to thumb-sucking and snuggling with my blankie in my safe room for the rest of the day, sipping herbal tea to calm my nerves. This is sooo upsetting….(Okay, I’m watching old westerns and remembering when men were men, but that is so not PC.)

  2. “Being in the minority, which those of us of a reactionary bent surely are, is advantageous for one reason: we do not assume: we know where we are, we know who we are. This is not always so for the majority, at least not reflexively. ”

    This cuts to the heart of the issue for me, while reflexive yes, the social thought defined “minority”‘s reflexive response is not true reactionary in the raw sense based on existing paradigm conventions. The reflexive response is a response to concepts and consensus that make no logical sense to applied logic and required knowledge\understanding.

    For example, the recent Hand shake faux moral hysteria is the perfect example of majority reflexive response. This illogical reflexive response is a result of consensus and concept building in the social sphere, driven by pseudo-intellectual voices and unquestioningly taken up by the majority en-masse, a socio-hysterical response ensues, because such voices are subscribed to, wantonly out of need to conform with the majority, though the actual cause is something other, and that is the inability and\or unwillingness of the majority to critically examine each issue as it arises.

    This is rooted in education, or to be more accurate education imbued with ideology. This is the root of building an imaginary world where one must see the real world through this concept’s rules and conventions.
    To clarify, a concept has a defined boundary, it has conventions that rule the concept, such an example would be extreme Environmentalism, a convention of this concept is that humans are a net negative entity regardless of any real world examination. The concept almost creates a self loathing, a negative impact of the conventions of the concept of extreme environmentalism. As such anything viewed through this false filter they apply to the world can only deliver one conclusion, humans are bad.

    This reminds me of relativity, astrophysics cannot move forward because it sees the universe through relativity, and as such you cannot deviate from those conventions, and like other conventions in different areas of society, the conceptual rules are passed down from the authority, and readily absorbed by those who are the majority.

    This process of creating concepts and defined closed system ideas that are not allowed to organically grow, but rather are inorganically directed by the authority, is what traps an ideologically educated individual and dictates whether they are the minority or the majority.

    An example would me myself, I left school at 12 years old, for reasons outside of my control. As such I have found I do not think like a majority in almost all matters of grey area and debate. I dont assume this made me “better” but I do maintain that I am not predisposed to certain concepts and I am able to identify the limiting boundaries of a concept. I am Apolitical, have no ideology, and so I am free to examine root cause, without predisposition (though I must resist being predisposed to trusting the minority in all matters) it’s a battle, one must remain self aware when examining an external system to avoid wandering off the path of seeking truth, be it in life or science. But I digress, as always/

    Back to the handshake hysteria. A handshake is a convention, unlike a technical handshake, it is not actually a prerequisite for communication. It is a social norm of “a” majority, but not the only one, curt nods are also a common norm, as is just saying “hello”. Unfortunately a concept has been again built around this simple norm, this concept’s conventions make those, trapped within the concept’s rules, to see this as culture v culture, West vs Islam. The boundaries of this concept do not allow thinking at a more base level, as in, the majority cannot resolve the handshake question down to a “person v person” and a “mutual respect between two individuals”. The issue has been weaponised via concept. The concept demans that one side is right and the other is wrong, baed on geographical location, which borders on insanity.
    The majority within the concept cannot see that forcing someone to do as you want because you dont agree with their decision is illogical outside of the conceptual idea, plus, the majority are recognising that using geographic location and religious disagreement as a foundation for said thinking, are actually the boundaries of the concept forcing their hand.

    I hope this made sense. I tend to ramble

  3. Correction to the above, last paragraph. “the majority are NOT* recognising that using geographic location and religious disagreement as a foundation for said thinking, are actually the boundaries of the concept forcing their hand.”

  4. Alan McIntire

    July 23, 2016 at 9:26 am

    “Sheri
    JULY 23, 2016 AT 8:14 AM
    Many of the internet platforms like Twitter were not well thought out. Given complete anonymity, people lack manners and can be vicious. ”

    I’ve done that myself, and was ashamed of my posts afterwards. I always sign my real name now, to prevent my responding with childish insults.

    Earlier in my career, I didn’t say anything to “out” myself as a conservative, but after 30 years I was no longer concerned or worried about keeping my job, and became more blunt and open in my speech.

  5. I must say that you have framed pretty well the reality of the navigational issues that face “a” minority individual, and it is true that two minority individuals can converse as majorities without ever knowing either is a minority due to this forced actual of taking the path of least resistance.

    Another problem with concept building is that it will by design force someone trapped inside to exclude any information that does not fit within the boundary of the concept, often vehemently so.

    An individual that is trapped within a concept, attains core beliefs from that closed system of thought, and as such any mental expression of thought that conflicts in their own minds causes an ego protecting defence mechanism. Cognitive dissonance for me is not the fight or flight response, that is a result of two subconscious conflicting thoughts being expressed in the conscious mind simultaneously and the protection of ego response forces a reconciliation, often an irrational one, or a refusal of to consider the conflict altogether, which can be identified as someone changing tack when their conscious examination meets a dead end and cannot reconcile those contradicting, expressed thoughts. This phenomenon reveals the cause of the state of the vast majority of internet debate.

    One can only assume this is by design. Humans with an inability to negotiate and self examine and reflect, only serves one purpose, subjugation.

  6. The banning of Yiannopoulos is proof the -isms are simply a veneer and justification for other driving forces and agendas. And those using the -isms to gain control will crush them once in power — an historical redo.

    Never forget that the National Socialists and the Bolsheviks murdered 25 million during their internecine war of power and control, which they disquised as a struggle over ideology.

    I suggest this is all part of a Gramscian plan built on the destruction of Christianity and other Western institutions.

    Left unknown is who are the driving forces seeking control.

  7. Hey, what is Twitter? I know the “Republican” candidate for president (no upper-case here) uses it, but I never have and I don’t how it might work.

  8. “don’t how” —> “don’t know how”

  9. Well, I think there’s a good chunk of country out there who simply oppose the policies of the Right. We think Modern American Conservatism, as widely understood, has produced nothing of any value and has been holding us back for 40 years now. Wasteful military spending, increasingly regressive taxation, no discernible healthcare system, a police state with it’s foot on the throat of millions and millions of Americans, no investment in the institutional and physical infrastructure of the nation, this is what conservatism has brought to us.

    You’d really have to be a bit of a moron to miss all that.

    JMJ

  10. JMJ: “You’d really have to be a bit of a moron to miss all that.” That explains why you miss the damage done by the enslaving progressives then.

  11. Sheri, seeing people as holding an immoral or just inapt ideology is not tribalism, though in this case it could be said to be recognizing tribalism.

    JMJ

  12. JMJ,

    What is your ideology? If not conservative, then what?

    By the way, since being subsumed by the neocons, the modern conservative movement is more akin to the nationalist and security reaction (the Fascist reaction) to ideas coming from the Bolshevik leaders of the Third International — aka Comintern.

    The neocons are the Fascists, socialist to the core, but desiring security and borders over the utopian future hailed by the likes of Lenin and Bernie (Hillary is selling nothing other than a dystopian future).

    Just like the hate between Bolshevism and National Socialism (both socialists movements to the core), the modern Left and the modern Right are fighting an internecine war to see who wears the socialist boot of control.

    Remaining is classical liberalism (libertarianism), which is my view of the world.

    Though, reading your comments, you appear to be in either the Hillary or Bernie camp. Regardless, you simply want the boot to be yours.

  13. JMJ: Seeing peope as holding an immoral or just inapt ideology is not tribalism—good to know. I always thought it was just good sense. However, for it to be good sense and not just tribalism requires statements of more than “How stupid” or “You’re a mean conservative”, etc, which sadly seem to be missing from your responses. Perhaps longer, clearer responses would help. Perhaps not.

  14. … no discernible healthcare system …

    Ain’t it kinda funny that so many people from places with fully-formed healthcare systems come to this backwater place to get their medical care.

  15. It is a constant battle for a person to remain objective, this requires self reflection in the 2nd person perspective.

    You literally need to do this at every turn.

    Life is a series of negotiations at every crossroads. Being able to examine any given issue demands that you step outside of your paradigm in order to see clearly.

  16. If one cannot extract one’s self from their own paradigm when examining any given negotiation of conflicting information, one is destined to follow the road their paradigm dictates

  17. Sheri

    July 24, 2016 at 10:01 am

    JMJ: Seeing peope as holding an immoral or just inapt ideology is not tribalism—good to know. I always thought it was just good sense. However, for it to be good sense and not just tribalism requires statements of more than “How stupid” or “You’re a mean conservative”, etc, which sadly seem to be missing from your responses. Perhaps longer, clearer responses would help. Perhaps not.
    _____________________________
    Tribalism is perpetuated through education today. Education is mostly imbued with Liberal ideology.

    This has become so inherent and problematic that Liberal professors are now terrified of liberal students.

    Worth noting, Intelligence doesn’t require education and education doesn’t require intelligence.

    The problem is one identifies with a tribe, a remnant of genetic coding of biological propagation

  18. One must actively resist tribalism at every turn lest you fall into the trap

  19. Having listened to your podcasts, which are brilliant, I have come to think of the rules and conventions within a concept as the “parameters” in a “model”, a false reality.

  20. As Bob said in an earlier thread, “I am not sure what Marty’s all about. No offense.”

  21. Geezer

    July 27, 2016 at 7:47 am

    As Bob said in an earlier thread, “I am not sure what Marty’s all about. No offense.”

    _____________________
    No offense taken :p Not understanding is hardly my issue after all is it.

  22. Geezer

    July 27, 2016 at 7:47 am

    As Bob said in an earlier thread, “I am not sure what Marty’s all about. No offense.”
    __________
    Also, have I posted on another thread? If so can you point out where? Thanks

    Also, if there is something I post relative to the subject matter written by Will that you don’t understand, and don’t understand how it relates to what I quoted from the article, some quotes would be nice, as in, I do not understand what you are actually talking about.. no offense mate. 😀

    None of my posts are addressed to any comments at all bar one to Sheri’s post.

    maybe you can elaborate?

  23. I merely discussed mainly the idea of majority vs minority and how the spheres of thought create a divide

  24. maybe you can elaborate?

    My comment quoted another commenter on a previous thread and included an embedded link to the comment I quoted. What’s to elaborate?

  25. Geezer

    July 27, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    maybe you can elaborate?

    My comment quoted another commenter on a previous thread and included an embedded link to the comment I quoted. What’s to elaborate?
    Geezer

    ______________________________________
    This post is what I was referring to my good man.
    July 27, 2016 at 7:47 am

    As Bob said in an earlier thread, “I am not sure what Marty’s all about. No offense.”
    _______________________
    So I seem to be mistaken, you mean another Marty? Not actually me?

    If so my bad, carry on

  26. Geezer

    July 27, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Ahh I see now, I corrected an incorrect part of another comment in that threat, I didn’t see part of your post was a link to the other thread.

    So, what has the other thread got to do with this one, and why bring that issue you seem to have to this thread?

  27. Answers on a postcard, send to 14c Caresmuch street, Fickleham. Entries must be in by close of business 29\07\2016

    As I said, whether you understand something, or not, doesn’t really have anything to do with me. If you feel the needs to share your thoughts, fine, but at least elaborate on what on earth you have issue with, details lad

    Cheers mate
    Marty

  28. I do wonder why you think what “Bob” whomever he is, thinks on another thread, is relevant to this one.

    Guess I bumped into a majority here, my bad

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑