Sheeple

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The reason is to discuss why there is a disparaging term to insult a group when that term encompasses people of varying levels of intelligence.

But the word is aimed at a group of people without regard to their relative intelligence. The term is quite appropriate when describing people who blindly follow someone, in this case, government, with no regard as to whether those they follow are right or not.

Also, these people who deserve the "insult" never SEE themselves as sheeple and so NO ONE feels they are being insulted. It's like insulting the dog that dug up your flower bed. It's pointless, and hence the reason for my comment.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor I use the term "sheeple" and I don't apologize for it. Most American people are like sheep (hence "sheeple"): they blindly accept what the government and the media tell them and accept the status quo.

And you know this is true of most of the American people...how? Can you show me the study that was done that tracked the attitudes of a statistcally significant number of Americans and found that they blindly accept what the government and the media tells them? On what facts do you base this belief? I would be interested to know. Because surely, you who require more have gone to some objective source and confirmed this. Certainly you would not simply parrot what someone who has the same set of political ideas/conclusions you have has said in reguards to the vast majority of Americans (and surely there could be no vested interest in painting that vast majority as deluded since that vast majority REJECTS what you accept?)?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Chancellor How do you know they "blindly" accept what the government and media tell them? I could easily argue that given the current approval ratings, the majority of Americans in fact don't blindly accept it. Regardless, what about the other question of the topic? How is using a disparaging term for a group in any way functional for mature discussion and debate?

It's a descriptive term that serves as shorthand for all the extra words it would require to say the same thing. The notion that mature discussion must maintain some sort of politically correct non-offensiveness is not necessarily factual.

As for the approval ratings, polls are pretty much meaningless. In any event, they don't stop most Americans from just accepting what they're told (they don't have to like it).

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 And you know this is true of most of the American people...how? Can you show me the study that was done that tracked the attitudes of a statistcally significant number of Americans and found that they blindly accept what the government and the media tells them? On what facts do you base this belief?

Observation.

I would be interested to know. Because surely, you who require more have gone to some objective source and confirmed this.

Observation is as objective as anyone can get.

Certainly you would not simply parrot what someone who has the same set of political ideas/conclusions you have has said in reguards to the vast majority of Americans (and surely there could be no vested interest in painting that vast majority as deluded since that vast majority REJECTS what you accept?)?

Since I don't listen to anyone in particular (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly, or whoever), I don't parrot what someone else says.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Observation. Observation is as objective as anyone can get. Since I don't listen to anyone in particular (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly, or whoever), I don't parrot what someone else says.

You are hoist by your own petard and do not even know it. Observation, indeed. Anyone with any scientific expierence want to explain to our friend here why his anecdotal evidence fails to pass muster?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Scribbler But the word is aimed at a group of people without regard to their relative intelligence. The term is quite appropriate when describing people who blindly follow someone, in this case, government, with no regard as to whether those they follow are right or not. Also, these people who deserve the "insult" never SEE themselves as sheeple and so NO ONE feels they are being insulted. It's like insulting the dog that dug up your flower bed. It's pointless, and hence the reason for my comment.

That's part of the reason I wondered what the functional purpose was of the word. The two different "definitions" I've gotten in this thread are:

1. People who agree with / support the government based on information they are given and haven't gotten for themselves.

2. People who are opposed to the government but comply anyway.

Contrary to #1, I have seen the term used for people who think for themselves who decide that they support the government. That makes no sense to me, since they are clearly choosing to follow willingly.

And contrary to #2, some of those people comply because they have too much, in their assessment, to lose.

To me, "aiming at a group of people without regard to their relative intelligence" seems the greater bigotry because it disregards the individual differences.

Coupled with the fact that the majority of people who use the term on VC are Libertarians who use individual differences as one of the reasons for choosing that ideology, I find it, at best, hypocritical for people to use those words for any person who doesn't say they fight against the government.

I emphasize that because it's the quickest insult thrown, here on VC, when someone doesn't jump on the bandwagon and disagree with the U.S. gov't.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chancellor It's a descriptive term that serves as shorthand for all the extra words it would require to say the same thing.

How Orwellian.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's part of the reason I wondered what the functional purpose was of the word. The two different "definitions" I've gotten in this thread are: 1. People who agree with / support the government based on information they are given and haven't gotten for themselves. 2. People who are opposed to the government but comply anyway.

Pretty much.

Contrary to #1, I have seen the term used for people who think for themselves who decide that they support the government. That makes no sense to me, since they are clearly choosing to follow willingly.

One could argue that the notion of thinking for yourself and supporting the government is an oxymoron.

And contrary to #2, some of those people comply because they have too much, in their assessment, to lose.

What is their liberty worth to them?

To me, "aiming at a group of people without regard to their relative intelligence" seems the greater bigotry because it disregards the individual differences.

But the leftists seem to want to disregard individual differences on one hand (by trying to level the playing field, doing away with such things as competition in the name of boosting a child's self-esteem, creating inherently paternalistic programs like affirmative action, etc.) while, on the other hand, demanding the celebration of such differences by its notion of "diversity" but only to the extent that such differences are considered politically correct.

Coupled with the fact that the majority of people who use the term on VC are Libertarians who use individual differences as one of the reasons for choosing that ideology, I find it, at best, hypocritical for people to use those words for any person who doesn't say they fight against the government. I emphasize that because it's the quickest insult thrown, here on VC, when someone doesn't jump on the bandwagon and disagree with the U.S. gov't.

Yes, individual liberty is what it's all about and we find any attempts to curb individual liberty to be acts of violence against the Constitution and against what it means to be an American. We're against the government because the government has turned against the Constitution. I use "sheeple" merely as a descriptive term. Whether someone else finds it pejorative is up to that person.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH How Orwellian.

Thank you.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Milton - How is it, if I am so ineffectual, that I get under your skin to such a degree?

Where did I say you were "ineffectual"?


This is what I'm talking about. How many times do I have to reply to questions that you pose to yourself, or you putting words im my mouth?


You get under my skin because you are often intellectually dishonest with us, and you use the same evasive tatics every time you percieve the going is getting tough. You avoid our questions, yet lay out a gauntlet of questions for us to answer. You put words in my mouth, and construct entire premises out of you imagination, and expect us to defend these "worst case scenarios".

Quote by: lsbskins1 The people who really say things I find to be void of all thought, logic and worth...I pretty much ingore. I do that because it is pointless to discuss things with people who have no capacity for logic. I believe you dislike my posts so much because you know that there is plenty of logic in them. They would not be so threatening to you if they were not.

Delusions of grandeur? Certainly you don't think that is an accurate representation of anything other than your mid day fantasies?

Quote by: lsbskins1 What is illogical about pointing out that all the free market ideas floating around in your head are theories that have never worked in actuallity in the way their proponents claim? What is illogical about pointing out that people who cling to theories because they sound like simple solutions are very "sheeple" like by your own definition of the term? Your problem with me is not my lack of logic. I suspect it is more that, when you are feeling all warm and cozy in your blanket of misconception, I come along and throw mightly cold, logical water on you.

It's not the philosophies that you argue that irritate me, it is your intellectual dishonesty, and complete lack of respect for the opposition.


Oh, I still fault your philosophies, but I never have berate many of the other socialists here for their demeaning, degrading tone towards me, or for putting words in mouth.


My problems with you are illustrated perfectly in the quoted text I'm responding to right now. A classic example of a person who cannot fault the argument, so you attempt to attack the messenger.


And still, I enjoy these little "get togethers" for the most part, because nobodies agenda is as easy to expose as those who lack the propensity for frontline battle, but who still insist on getting into the trenches.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's part of the reason I wondered what the functional purpose was of the word. The two different "definitions" I've gotten in this thread are: 1. People who agree with / support the government based on information they are given and haven't gotten for themselves. 2. People who are opposed to the government but comply anyway. Contrary to #1, I have seen the term used for people who think for themselves who decide that they support the government. That makes no sense to me, since they are clearly choosing to follow willingly.

The term is used here to denote that we think they are "following willingly" out of complete ignorance of the constitution, or it's proper place in the law making process. ( Either due to the press, or apathy )

Quote by: ZNFYRH And contrary to #2, some of those people comply because they have too much, in their assessment, to lose.

Aw bunk.

Quote by: ZNFYRH To me, "aiming at a group of people without regard to their relative intelligence" seems the greater bigotry because it disregards the individual differences.

It's not an attack on ones intelligence, but rather ones ignorance. The ignorant can blame the press, it's the rest of you that need a damned good excuse for supporting the crooks.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Coupled with the fact that the majority of people who use the term on VC are Libertarians who use individual differences as one of the reasons for choosing that ideology, I find it, at best, hypocritical for people to use those words for any person who doesn't say they fight against the government. I emphasize that because it's the quickest insult thrown, here on VC, when someone doesn't jump on the bandwagon and disagree with the U.S. gov't.

Well, that is your opinion, and I can certainly see how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I think you are on the wrong side of this anyway. So when you catch yourself "self identifying" as one of the people that was aimed at, then enjoy it for all it is worth.


That is the whole point. If you can find yourself self identifying as one of the people that was aimed at, perhaps it's time reflect on what it is your standing up for.


Are you an American, beholden to the Constitution, or are you an enemy of the people aiming to subvert that very document?


Is your allegiance to political party, and the changing ideologies of those groups, or is your allegiance to the sacred law of the land?


I think I know where both of us fall in regards to these questions, which is why we are always at odds.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chancellor One could argue that the notion of thinking for yourself and supporting the government is an oxymoron.

You could, but the people that control our government think for themselves... and they support it. I would not call person pulling G.W.'s puppet strings a "sheeple."

Quote by: Chancellor But the leftists...

That has nothing to do with this. Your mention of it reveals a personal bias that doesn't really belong in this thread.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, it just doesn't belong here.

Quote by: Chancellor What is their liberty worth to them?

Liberty is relative. Some people could live perfectly happy with the rights they are allowed in another country and not even think about the ones they don't have in America. That doesn't mean they have less liberty.

As such, for those who have more to lose in the fight than winning the fight would give, the answer to your comment really depends on how much liberty they think they have already.

Just because they don't agree with a specific opinion of the government does not make them mindless followers.

Quote by: Chancellor I use "sheeple" merely as a descriptive term

Thus meaning, to me, that you use the word to describe mindless followers as a concept, and not necessarily people who disagree with you and your opinion. I could be wrong.

Quote by: Milton Aw bunk.

Why it is bunk? It's proven fact that people will endure hardship in order to save something they value.

Quote by: Milton The ignorant can blame the press, it's the rest of you that need a damned good excuse for supporting the crooks.

Kindly please stop making the ignorant mistake of presuming my opinions on government simply because I started a thread about a derogatory word.

Quote by: Milton Well, that is your opinion, and I can certainly see how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I think you are on the wrong side of this anyway. So when you catch yourself "self identifying" as one of the people that was aimed at, then enjoy it for all it is worth.

You're starting to piss me off with your sniping at me and my alleged opinions. Who was it that made comments about imagining things?

This thread is about a word... nothing more. Kindly please stop going off-topic with comments about me personally and my political leanings, especially since I've been very careful to never post in any thread that requires I express my political opinion.

I debate. Sometimes I choose a topic I don't agree with. Stop trying to attack me personally and stick to the topic. I'm getting sick of people like you trying to pull that subtle sniping crap.

Quote by: Milton I think I know where both of us fall in regards to these questions, which is why we are always at odds.

"Always at odds"

I've never once addressed you in a debate on VC other than in this thread. I don't know who you think you're talking to, but you should double-check. And for the last time, stop starting with the soapboxing rhetoric.

Trying to call me out to state my personal political views does not belong here.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's part of the reason I wondered what the functional purpose was of the word. The two different "definitions" I've gotten in this thread are: 1. People who agree with / support the government based on information they are given and haven't gotten for themselves. 2. People who are opposed to the government but comply anyway.

#1 is pretty close to it, but #2 is incorrect. There are plenty of reasons for a person to comply with what they oppose. Threat of prison would be one reason.

Sheep are willingly led while those who oppose and comply are forced. Get it?

Quote by: Milton Bradley Are you an American, beholden to the Constitution, or are you an enemy of the people aiming to subvert that very document? Is your allegiance to political party, and the changing ideologies of those groups, or is your allegiance to the sacred law of the land?

"Beholden to the Constitution", "Enemy of the people", "sacred law of the land"--do you have any idea how irrational and delusional that sounds?

Regards
S.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Scribbler Sheep are willingly led while those who oppose and comply are forced. Get it?

By "oppose", I didn't mean actively. I was opposed to the way the military was run, when I was in, but I complied because of what I would have lost if I had fought back.

[Osborn F Enready]

I feel so flattered one of my favorite terms has reached its "own thread" status!

I want to thank the academy, of course, and my manager. Thanks to Milton, and Scribbler, Chancellor and others who have helped to focus the intent like a laserbeam of recognition. I also want to thank my parents, and friends for letting this all be possible.

Thanks you Z, so gracious for this award of entering my favorite term into the public lexicon, much like "Colbert" did for truthiness.

Thanks SDBest for being there, and wearing the tag like a trooper when times were hard, we know it took a lot out of you.

I am so thankful......

(bows, throws air kisses to crowd)









(ahem)


Sheeple are sheeple, and most people understand what it means just from the name.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH By "oppose", I didn't mean actively. I was opposed to the way the military was run, when I was in, but I complied because of what I would have lost if I had fought back.

That is precisely the point. People who oppose the government are those who don't necessarily take up arms, or stand on soapboxes, or even post on Internet forums. But they go along with it because they don't have a choice and precious little power to change anything. And that little power is diluted into near nothingness by those who blindly go along, making it intensely frustrating for those who aren't blind to what's going on around them.
So, in this context, "sheeple" or "idiot sheep" is about the mildest insult I can think of.

Personally, if I had the power to do so, I'd round up these idiot sheep and personally slap the stupid right out of them.

And the big difference in opposing (even without actively doing so) the military and an ordinary citizen is you VOLUNTEER for the military. It's not unlike having a choice of societies to be born into, assuming you could make such a choice in utero.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why it is bunk? It's proven fact that people will endure hardship in order to save something they value.

Perhaps we're using it here to call into question why anybody would value that kind of treatment.

Quote by: ZNFYRH You're starting to piss me off with your sniping at me and my alleged opinions. Who was it that made comments about imagining things? This thread is about a word... nothing more. Kindly please stop going off-topic with comments about me personally and my political leanings, especially since I've been very careful to never post in any thread that requires I express my political opinion. I debate. Sometimes I choose a topic I don't agree with. Stop trying to attack me personally and stick to the topic. I'm getting sick of people like you trying to pull that subtle sniping crap.

Perhaps I have confused you with another poster, for that I am sorry. Your argument are very similar to another poster here who frequently pushes my buttons. ( Not that that is an excuse, but perhaps a causitive factor... )

Quote by: ZNFYRH "Always at odds" I've never once addressed you in a debate on VC other than in this thread. I don't know who you think you're talking to, but you should double-check. And for the last time, stop starting with the soapboxing rhetoric.

Again, I think this is mererly a case of me confusing you with somebody else. And again, I apologize.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Trying to call me out to state my personal political views does not belong here.

Why? I am expressing mine.

[christibe]

The reason that sheeple is such a great term is that it defines people who, despite having all the necessary resources, continue on living however it is they know. They do not seek out anything. That is why they are like sheep- despite having all the grass they need, they are too lazy or too scared to just not follow the stupid dog when he comes to gather them up. That is why they are allowed to roam freely- nobody is afraid they'll try to run away.

And that is why they suck, and nothing will ever get any better... because more people are like sheep than not.

(Interesting how a person who first brought up the N-word is not suspended at all.... that is a pretty awful word, ESPECIALLY when used in comparison to a non-violent word.) That said, I am not sure that any members of this forum could be a 'sheeperson'?, unless they are only here to get other people to accept their beliefs.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest My side?

That is directed at those who demonize inanimate objects, and contend that tools are capable of commiting crimes.

Quote by: sdbest I don't recall joining any side. But, you've peaked my curiosity. What "logical fallacies" and "demons from deep within their own imaginations" (Oh my!) are you referring to? Regards S.

As explained above, and I should probably add those that want the majority persons life dictated by government policy under the premise of "the public welfare".