Sheeple

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest "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.

To a subject? Hehehehe


I would think people of the libertarian persuasion would seem the rational, logical group from the three you have to pick from in contemporary US politics.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Scribbler1 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.

[Stands to lead the standing ovation]
Claps...looks around...claps some more...


Thank you for your contribution.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley 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". Delusions of grandeur? Certainly you don't think that is an accurate representation of anything other than your mid day fantasies? 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.

I may be many things, but I am never "intellectually dishonest". And I do not avoid questions. I am accused of it often, but don't ever do it. I will say it again. I do not "answer" rhetorical questions like "did that come from your imagination?", but will gladly answer any specific questions about what facts I base my opinions on or where I get my information. And I AM faulting the argument when I say things like "Your argument is not sound because you accuse a majority of being sheeple when you have no statistical basis for the claim, but only anecdotal observation". That is factual refutation, not fantasy.

Again, I will say. List out the "questions" I have not answered and I will respond. If you want me to respond to your questions, don't wrap them in insulting, rhetorical accusation. When you do that, I feel free to be a smarmy smart-ass right back at you.

And by the way, calling someone delusional is an example of attacking the person and not the argument. So, it would seem you are pretty guilty of what you claim to dislike. Funny, isn't it.

[ZNFYRH]

Think you two can take it to PM or just knock off the bickering altogether?

It has nothing to do with the topic.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley [Stands to lead the standing ovation] Claps...looks around...claps some more... Thank you for your contribution.

Now, don't you feel embarrased standing there all by yourself? Nyuck nyuck.

[shawmutt]

People who use the word sheeple remind me of the "artists" who scoff at art while shitting on a napkin and calling it a masterpiece.

Ironically those same people congregate on message boards and mill around while laughing at the "poor idiots" around them.

Animal Farm anyone?

[ZNFYRH]

shawmutt

That's why the final part of the OP is asking why the people who use the term think they are better than those to whom they are applying it.

I'd be curious what parallels you see to Animal Farm, because all I see are people saying that everyone should be free to choose but they are derogatory and insulting when that choice isn't the same one they make.

[Gods_Mercenary]

In animal farm the sheep are the ones led around by the nose by Napoleon the pig, hence, sheeple. They support Napoleon by blindly accepting his rule because he makes them feel comfortable.

[thx1138]

well you know what they always say... If the shoe fits... wear it.

[ZNFYRH]

Ahhh, I see.

I thought you were saying that the people that use the term are the pigs... because they are insulting the other animals even though they are animals themselves.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 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?

Your post assumes that "science" is somehow entitled to the status of unquestioned authority. By the way "observation" is an important element of "science."

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Your post assumes that "science" is somehow entitled to the status of unquestioned authority. By the way "observation" is an important element of "science."

Not anecdotal observation. If that was valid, it would be valid of me to say "Most Christians are hypocrits" because that is the way I personally see the behavior of most of the Christians I have been around. That, however, is not valid. My personal observation is tainted by my opinions. The difference, dear friend, is that science uses blind studies and control groups to filter out the "opinion" of the observer. It attempts, through all accepted practice, to make it's findings objective. Nothing touched by humans is perfect, but science tries. So, my post assumes only that true science attempts objectivity, and I always question all authority, scientific or otherwise.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Not anecdotal observation. If that was valid, it would be valid of me to say "Most Christians are hypocrits" because that is the way I personally see the behavior of most of the Christians I have been around. That, however, is not valid. My personal observation is tainted by my opinions. The difference, dear friend, is that science uses blind studies and control groups to filter out the "opinion" of the observer. It attempts, through all accepted practice, to make it's findings objective. Nothing touched by humans is perfect, but science tries. So, my post assumes only that true science attempts objectivity, and I always question all authority, scientific or otherwise.

Is it anecdote or is it observation? You don't get to have it both ways!

I don't know what hypocrits are but in one way or another (because they're human and do, sometimes, give in to the temptation to sin) most (all) Christians are hypocrites.

Scientists are just as biased as everyone else - perhaps even more so! Science has become a system of belief (one of Francis Bacon's idols of the theater).

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Is it anecdote or is it observation? You don't get to have it both ways! I don't know what hypocrits are but in one way or another (because they're human and do, sometimes, give in to the temptation to sin) most (all) Christians are hypocrites. Scientists are just as biased as everyone else - perhaps even more so! Science has become a system of belief (one of Francis Bacon's idols of the theater).

an·ec·do·tal /ˈænɪkˌdoʊtl, ˌænɪkˈdoʊtl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-ik-doht-l, an-ik-doht-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. pertaining to, resembling, or containing anecdotes: an anecdotal history of jazz.
2. (of the treatment of subject matter in representational art) pertaining to the relationship of figures or to the arrangement of elements in a scene so as to emphasize the story content of a subject. Compare narrative (def. 6).
3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.


# 3 would be the relevant definition. Your personal observations do not equate to established fact. And my use was not incorrect.

And what would you suggest is the better way to arrive at answers to questions? What is going to give a better result? You say science is tainted, but do not explain how? Is it wrong to require some sort of accounting of how you arrive at a conclusion? Or are you saying that because one scientist does a study that says eggs are bad for you and then another does a study that says they are good for you, that all science is flawed and must be...what?....ignored? Just because a newspaper runs a story about a published study and the general public does not know or care to find out the actual relevance or if the methods of the study were sound, does not mean "science" is flawed. So, again, please explain how your observations are more valid than scientific study, and by scientific I mean following the scientic method and actually checking and verifying and establishing controls. etc.

[lsbskins1]

And that was very forgiving and Christian of you, pointing out in such a compassionate and understanding way my mistake in spelling. Is that an example of one of those sins that make Christians "hypocrites"?

[Autolykos]

Allow me to deconstruct the OP...

Quote by: ZNFYRH I'm wondering what the functional purpose is of that word.

The functional purpose of that word, like any word, is to describe something that the speaker observes or has observed.

Were I to use the word "sheeple", I would define it as "people whose beliefs and conclusions are guided entirely by emotions". A corollary to this definition is that such people, when confronted with contrary information, will typically do everything in their power to ignore or deny it. In my view, this is quite an unhealthy and unrealistic practice.

I'm wondering how that word is, in any way, respectful, or appropriate for use in mature discussion.

I would not say that it is respectful or appropriate for use in mature discussion. However, I would say that respect is earned.

I'm wondering why people who accept the world around them are labeled as unintelligent followers.

I think you misunderstand. It's not a question of "accept[ing] the world around them". Rather, it's a question of believing in lies, even when the truth is staring them in the face.

Obviously there are people out there who are unintelligent followers that don't think for themselves, but accepting the world in which you live doesn't make you such.

I agree. However, I fail to see how anyone has argued otherwise.

So please, for those of you that toss the term around, what makes you better than them?

Do all those who use the appellative "sheeple" believe that they are better than those designated as such?

Please provide me with some kind of proof, if you could. Because, quite honestly, those of you who toss out the derogatory pigeon-holing terms (nanny-stater, sheeple, etc.) all strike me as followers yourselves for thinking that using those words is cool.

At the very least, use of labels does not logically win arguments.

- Rob

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 an·ec·do·tal /ˈænɪkˌdoʊtl, ˌænɪkˈdoʊtl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-ik-doht-l, an-ik-doht-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. pertaining to, resembling, or containing anecdotes: an anecdotal history of jazz. 2. (of the treatment of subject matter in representational art) pertaining to the relationship of figures or to the arrangement of elements in a scene so as to emphasize the story content of a subject. Compare narrative (def. 6). 3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. # 3 would be the relevant definition. Your personal observations do not equate to established fact. And my use was not incorrect.

And every scientist that makes an observation is doing it personally - someone else isn't making the observation for him.

And what would you suggest is the better way to arrive at answers to questions? What is going to give a better result?

That's a matter of opinion. Science insists that it is the sole arbiter of truth and I disagree. Science has its basis in philosophies such as humanism, secularism, naturalism, and so-called "rationalism" and, as such, is as much part of Francis Bacon's idol of the theater as religion.

You say science is tainted, but do not explain how?

No, what I said was that scientists are just as biased as everyone else. But I would agree that such biases would taint science itself.

Is it wrong to require some sort of accounting of how you arrive at a conclusion?

Is it morally wrong? No. Is it wrong to insist that only a certain way of arriving at a conclusion is acceptable? Yes.

Or are you saying that because one scientist does a study that says eggs are bad for you and then another does a study that says they are good for you, that all science is flawed and must be...what?....ignored?

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with individual scientists having their own sets of biases while claiming that science is supposed to be unbiased. The great lie of science is that it is unbiased. The fact (and it is fact) that science has its basis in specific philosophies automatically makes it biased - just as biased as religion.

Just because a newspaper runs a story about a published study and the general public does not know or care to find out the actual relevance or if the methods of the study were sound, does not mean "science" is flawed.

One should never trust the media to accurately report anything about science (or anything else, for that matter)!

So, again, please explain how your observations are more valid than scientific study, and by scientific I mean following the scientic method and actually checking and verifying and establishing controls. etc.

My personal observations are just as valid as so-called "scientific study" because I'm doing the same thing science does: making observations and drawing conclusions based on those observations.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 And that was very forgiving and Christian of you, pointing out in such a compassionate and understanding way my mistake in spelling. Is that an example of one of those sins that make Christians "hypocrites"?

Actually, my way of pointing it out to you was compassionate.

[ZNFYRH]

Autolykos

On the whole I agree with your post. I wasn't so much asking because I don't know the purpose of the word and such. It was moreso asking why people here choose to use it.

Quote by: Autolykos However, I would say that respect is earned. ... I think you misunderstand. It's not a question of "accept[ing] the world around them". Rather, it's a question of believing in lies, even when the truth is staring them in the face. ... I agree. However, I fail to see how anyone has argued otherwise.

To this, I would have to point out to you that I agree that it should only be used in reference to people that completely ignore obvious contradictions to what they believe.

But there are some here on VC who think that it applies to all people who support, in this case, the government. Someone in this very thread went so far as to say that intelligence doesn't matter. I think that is completely ignorant.

There are some who are completely aware of the truth and choose, for their own reasons, to support the government regardless.

The point was that it is used more to insult and dismiss those who don't agree with the poster than it is to describe a certain subset of person.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH 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."

No, they're puppet masters. Sheeple would be people who blindly and ignorantly accept everything the current Administration is doing.

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.

Sure it does. Go back and read my use of the phrase in the context of the entire post.

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.

And this is relevant how? If people in America want less liberty than they have, or if they're content to having the government take away their liberties, let them move to some country where they won't have the liberties they would have here if the government was brought back within its constitutional bounds.

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.

In the long term, they lose more by maintaining the status quo.

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

Many of the mindless followers even complain about the government. Their mindlessness comes in the belief that there are only two political parties to choose from and that they have to vote for the candidate the media tells them has the best chance of winning (the notion of elections being a horse race).

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.

Yes, I am using it as a conceptual term. I don't use it for everyone that disagrees with me.