You need to understand that my attacks (or my labels rather, because I never really insult), are not only done for the ones I target, but for everyone else as well. I explain that in the thread about Labels and moderation in the sensitive section:
Let me use a metaphor:
Let's say that you are in the crowded streets and you have glasses that can allow you to see who has the Virus X, the most threatening virus of all that can spread easily and kill. Now let's say that you are looking for patient 0 and you finally spot them at the middle of the crowd. How do you create a way for others not to be infected ?
Well, the most basic thing : You scream "this person has the virus X, don't approach them"
This is the same for political ideas. Informations can be analysed like a Virus, in some cases the spreading is very easy, in some it's hard. Researchers have studied the phenomenon and I explained that here:
Change usually comes from the outside. It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Put 100 person on a field of a stadium for 2 hours. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle. We will try to make them dance together.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology and the way informations or elements are shared among groups:
There are, in group behaviors like in epidemiology, two types of sharing (called contagion) of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Activists or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements. (said threashold can fluctuate in function of the subject or the behavior)
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects after a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph:
It comes from this video. If you want you can watch it with subtitles I think you can make the translation work:
As you can see, among those 100 persons, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass will be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected on peripheries. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if, after serving some drnk and let people enjoy their time, you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people with earpieces to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
So when I'm labelling someone, my goal is not only for said person to understand that we are not on the same page and potentially question themselves, but it's also to render more difficult the spreading of the information by the user and warn people around that my not be politically sharp by making them understanding that the information is potentially harmfull or false.
A lot of people here are using what we call in France "confusionnisme", it's a way to blur the limits of the political spectrum and make a far right or rightist idea appear like a progressive one.
My goal is therefore to clarify the field and replace everyone at their proper political place based on political and sociological knowledge and studies.
While I was not able to change people's mind, I consider that I was able to show who really think what by constantly pushing people toward conflictual subject that are determinant to understand their political place.
People don't like that, of course, because they love the idea of being progressist while trashing transgender people (or not acting when they are trashed) or trashing anticapitalist etc, but now, we at least have a good vision of people who like to spread missinformation.
Let me use a metaphor:
Let's say that you are in the crowded streets and you have glasses that can allow you to see who has the Virus X, the most threatening virus of all that can spread easily and kill. Now let's say that you are looking for patient 0 and you finally spot them at the middle of the crowd. How do you create a way for others not to be infected ?
Well, the most basic thing : You scream "this person has the virus X, don't approach them"
This is the same for political ideas. Informations can be analysed like a Virus, in some cases the spreading is very easy, in some it's hard. Researchers have studied the phenomenon and I explained that here:
V - THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE PROPOSITION:
Now, I will go more into details on the notion of change to make you understand how such a change is possible. For that, I will use a post that I have already made elsewhere about the science of groups and crowds.
Change usually comes from the outside. It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Put 100 person on a field of a stadium for 2 hours. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle. We will try to make them dance together.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology and the way informations or elements are shared among groups:
There are, in group behaviors like in epidemiology, two types of sharing (called contagion) of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Activists or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements. (said threashold can fluctuate in function of the subject or the behavior)
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects after a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph:
It comes from this video. If you want you can watch it with subtitles I think you can make the translation work:
As you can see, among those 100 persons, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass will be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected on peripheries. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if, after serving some drnk and let people enjoy their time, you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people with earpieces to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
A lot of people here are using what we call in France "confusionnisme", it's a way to blur the limits of the political spectrum and make a far right or rightist idea appear like a progressive one.
My goal is therefore to clarify the field and replace everyone at their proper political place based on political and sociological knowledge and studies.
While I was not able to change people's mind, I consider that I was able to show who really think what by constantly pushing people toward conflictual subject that are determinant to understand their political place.
People don't like that, of course, because they love the idea of being progressist while trashing transgender people (or not acting when they are trashed) or trashing anticapitalist etc, but now, we at least have a good vision of people who like to spread missinformation.
