Obama's 7 Year Record of School Shootings
- Thread starter rocketman
- Start date
Zeke
Well-known member
I don't suppose it will be your hysterics by any chance?
They (hysterics) never do one any good anyway, the gas chamber of disinfo kills without detection, just keep marching left right! left right! Left! cough, hack, gag, etc........................................
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I came across this in one of my texts:
GROUP POLARIZATION IN COMMUNITIES
Polarization also occurs in communities, as people self-segregate. “Crunchy places … attract crunchy types and become crunchier,” observes David Brooks (2005). “Conservative places … attract conservatives and become more so.” Neighborhoods become echo chambers, with opinions ricocheting off kindred-spirited friends.
Show social psychologists a like-minded group that interacts mostly among themselves and they will show you a group that may become more extreme. . .
GROUP POLARIZATION ON THE INTERNET
E-mail, blogs, and electronic chat rooms offer a potential new medium for like-minded people to find one another and for group interaction that increases social fragmentation and polarization. Facebook offers tens of thousands of groups of kindred spirits discussing religion, politics, hobbies, cars, music, and you name it. The Internet's countless virtual groups enable peacemakers and neo-Nazis, geeks and goths, conspiracy schemers and cancer survivors to isolate themselves with like-minded others and find support for their shared concerns, interests, and suspicions (Gerstenfeld & others, 2003; McKenna & Bargh, 1998, 2000; Sunstein, 2001, 2009). Indeed, most of us read blogs that reinforce rather than challenge our views, and those blogs link mostly to like-minded blogs—connecting liberals with liberals, conservatives with conservatives—like having conversations with the bathroom mirror (Lazer & others, 2009). Will such discussions produce group polarization? Will socially networked birds of a feather find support for their shared beliefs, values, and suspicions? Will peacemakers become more pacifistic and militia members more terror prone? E-mail, Google, and chat rooms “make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds, and mobilize lethal force,” observes Robert Wright (2003). As broadband spreads, Internet-spawned polarization will increase, he speculates. According to one University of Haifa analysis, terrorist websites—which grew from a dozen in 1997 to some 4,700 at the end of 2005—increased more than four times faster than the total number of websites (Ariza, 2006).
GROUP POLARIZATION IN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
From their analysis of terrorist organizations throughout the world, Clark McCauley and Mary Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002) note that terrorism does not erupt suddenly. Rather, it arises among people whose shared grievances bring them together and fans their fire. As they interact in isolation from moderating influences, they become progressively more extreme. The social amplifier brings the signal in more strongly. The result is violent acts that the individuals, apart from the group, would never have committed.
Polarization also occurs in communities, as people self-segregate. “Crunchy places … attract crunchy types and become crunchier,” observes David Brooks (2005). “Conservative places … attract conservatives and become more so.” Neighborhoods become echo chambers, with opinions ricocheting off kindred-spirited friends.
Show social psychologists a like-minded group that interacts mostly among themselves and they will show you a group that may become more extreme. . .
GROUP POLARIZATION ON THE INTERNET
E-mail, blogs, and electronic chat rooms offer a potential new medium for like-minded people to find one another and for group interaction that increases social fragmentation and polarization. Facebook offers tens of thousands of groups of kindred spirits discussing religion, politics, hobbies, cars, music, and you name it. The Internet's countless virtual groups enable peacemakers and neo-Nazis, geeks and goths, conspiracy schemers and cancer survivors to isolate themselves with like-minded others and find support for their shared concerns, interests, and suspicions (Gerstenfeld & others, 2003; McKenna & Bargh, 1998, 2000; Sunstein, 2001, 2009). Indeed, most of us read blogs that reinforce rather than challenge our views, and those blogs link mostly to like-minded blogs—connecting liberals with liberals, conservatives with conservatives—like having conversations with the bathroom mirror (Lazer & others, 2009). Will such discussions produce group polarization? Will socially networked birds of a feather find support for their shared beliefs, values, and suspicions? Will peacemakers become more pacifistic and militia members more terror prone? E-mail, Google, and chat rooms “make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds, and mobilize lethal force,” observes Robert Wright (2003). As broadband spreads, Internet-spawned polarization will increase, he speculates. According to one University of Haifa analysis, terrorist websites—which grew from a dozen in 1997 to some 4,700 at the end of 2005—increased more than four times faster than the total number of websites (Ariza, 2006).
GROUP POLARIZATION IN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
From their analysis of terrorist organizations throughout the world, Clark McCauley and Mary Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002) note that terrorism does not erupt suddenly. Rather, it arises among people whose shared grievances bring them together and fans their fire. As they interact in isolation from moderating influences, they become progressively more extreme. The social amplifier brings the signal in more strongly. The result is violent acts that the individuals, apart from the group, would never have committed.
--Social Psychology, David G. Myers
When you provide every "wingnut" in the country with the opportunity to assemble their own private arsenal of weapons that can be unleashed upon the American public at a time and place of their choosing, what outcome does "rocketman" expect to happen?
America doesn't have a monopoly on potential mass murderers, but it is the only modern democracy that is so accommodating in providing them with the means to fulfill their violent impulses!
You are a complete moron...The greater majority of guns or "arsenals" as you say are owned by law abiding citizens, and they are not the ones committing these atrocities, furthermore it has always been that way in this country citizens owning guns but, has only erupted violence in epic proportions under this president. How do you explain that? Guns have always been part of American heritage yet mass shootings & gun violence have went exponential while this man has been running the country...Coincidence?
Bullcrap!, the guns have always been there, since the founding of this country and the modern democracy you speak of belongs to liberals & liberals alone....get a clue. :doh:
- complete moron
- Bullcrap!
- get a clue
Why are gun supporters so predisposed to revert to verbal abuse rather than taking the time and effort to debate the topic on its merits?
A group of "rednecks" with limited social skills, an inability to articulate their position and a collective "short fuse" is a combination that shouldn't be entrusted with a gun in their hand.
- Bullcrap!
- get a clue
Why are gun supporters so predisposed to revert to verbal abuse rather than taking the time and effort to debate the topic on its merits?
A group of "rednecks" with limited social skills, an inability to articulate their position and a collective "short fuse" is a combination that shouldn't be entrusted with a gun in their hand.