h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Damn it....

Right I should say from a personal point of view at work I hardly ever just go along with the consensus. As a Union Rep it is my job in fact often to disagree with management. Consequently I am granted a reasonable degree of licence to do so.

However long before I became a rep I was outspoken and always questioned anything I didn't agree with. However I think I got away with it by being constructive sought of:-

"That is a load of rubbish, why not do it like this.... which makes more sence because of this...."

Never got listen too that much (staff suggestion is an anathema the the management here) but I always got away with it.

As opposed to 'Is it too easy to go along with the consensus?' how about 'How often is it worthwhile to expend effort on defending an alternative point of view?' or 'How often do the benefits of acting differently from the majority outweigh the disadvantages of the possible resultant opprobrium?'

Or alternatively, why is just being oneself seen as being 'against' others?

I don't ever 'act' different, though it seems I often come across as different. I don't do this on purpose. It's just who I am.

I also don't expend much effort or energy 'defending' my points of view. If others disagree, well, so what?

az

On a programme presented by Robert Winston, we saw an relevant example... People will not be the first to help someone in trouble, unless they are the only one there...

There was an example of this last week. My son and his friend were mugged in the main street for the friend's mobile phone. Despite this happening outside a cinema, no one weighed in to defend the boys against a bunch of toughs who outnumbered them - until one guy made a move. Then the rest did, and the would-be thieves scarpered. But it was a sticky five minutes before the guy who helped came along!

(They didn't get the phone (which had been a birthday present days before), and the boys weren't badly hurt. Thankfully!)

Speaking of getting in trouble for being different...

Last year, when I was taking part in the count for a local election, I wore my "I shag sheep" T-shirt, and got a dressing down for it the next day.

This year i'm thinking of having one printed which says "POLITICS : The art of talking b*ll*cks with a straight face"

Wonder how loud they'll shout at me for that?

however loud it is, it wouldn't be loud enough

T shirts with 'witty' slogans are plop

I saw a guy in town a while back wearing a t-shirt with 'witty slogan' printed on it.

>>>T shirts with 'witty' slogans are plop

I beg to differ. I'm very fond of my red t-shirt with "Crush Capitalism" written in Coca Cola font.

<>

Well thats acceptable cos it's not witty

Why would you volunteer to help with the count if you don't hold with Politics? Do you fancy the mayor or something ?


As to the original question, it is always easy to find someone who disagrees with you. I find that wherever I go, there's always someone who is totally racist/homophobic/bigotted/sexist/knows s0dall about football... Perhaps it becomes easier as we get older, because we know how to pick our fights?

For instance, its not always worth having a standup row with your grandad on his 80th, 'cos he makes some crack about women and shopping!! But that prannet that delivered the BNP leaflets through my letter box was just asking for it!!

You could always make a 'joke' that higlights someones bigotry so that it it takes some of the sting out of your contrary views. It works sometimes.

on the Subject of T shirts, I used to have one that said "real men wear black" it was black, but it wasnt meant to be witty so I guess that was OK.

On the subject of peoples opposition to post three.

I questioned how many instances of consensus Della meant by "shed loads" (or whatever spurious amount she used), I also gave the opinion that other peoples objections to some viewpoints are genuine (and often right as they are based on facts).

Since I posted that I have noticed people disagreeing with me (not consensus)

I have also been unable to find one other thread where there was any sign of people displaying a herd mentality.

I think that my post three was fairly restrained compared to what I could have posted. If you have a problem with this please send a cheque to me for one years licence fee and then I will start posting exactly what you want till then.....

one love

I would challenge Apple's post, too. I suspect that her perception stems from threads where many people hold a certain view which is different from Apple's.
H2g2 is actually one place where there is no need to dissemble. If you disagree with a majority view, you can say so, or say nothing. I certainly haven't been aware of people actively agreeing with others to keep the peace or be acceptable to other researchers.

In general, as has been said, it's often a matter of choosing the option of least stress. It also depends on your personality, how assertive you are, how stubborn or how you empathise with others.
Apple's example about being reluctant to get involved in a situation may depend on other factors such as fear of litigation or one's own safety.

Most people like to think they're individuals & not following the crowd. In practice, I suspect most of us are drawn to others like ourselves. Safety in numbers.

<< If you disagree with a majority view, you can say so,...>>

No, not unless you want to end up in a world of hurt! (Regarding som e issues, that is.)

<>

It probably was an issue of safety, in that case... though it surprised me to discover that two (comparatively wimpy-looking) boys can be mugged in the middle of the afternoon in a main street!)

Sparky came up with the most relevant point to me
Its a matter of picking your arguements
When my team leader spouts the company line to me I'm not going to argue with her about it because I don't believe she can affect the company line one iota
Then again my father was an arguementative sod all his life and he got a lot further career-wise than I look like doing so maybe its all down to personality

Tony/Blicky/whoever:

My "opposition" to post 3 was simply that it is boring and irritating for others when personal bickering is carried from one thread to another, as illustrated by the next poster saying that she is ignoring you and another user unsubscribing to avoid reading yet another confrontation.

I suggested that it would be courteous for you not to do that and said that I doubted that you would take my opinions on board...

I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to give your own opinions and your reasons for disagreeing with Apple *without* the use of sarcasm and rudeness, as others have done. Her views are often at odds with those of most other users of this site, but when she posts a non-provocative opinion that refers directly to the thread title, she is surely entitled to a courteous, non-provocative response.

You insist that she should be accurate at all times, yet you say ""shed loads" (or whatever spurious amount she used)". It would have been easy for you to check what phrase she used and that would in turn have added consistency to your views on accuracy, along with being less aggressive.

Perhaps you could ask Donald, who agreed with her, for his reasons for believing that?

Incidentally, I could quite easily mail you a cheque for one year's licence fee, or indeed two or three years', without it making the slightest difference to my life...but I think there are more deserving causes and I certainly don't pay for what should be common courtesy. It's a shame that you could be so easily bought off - is your right to freedom of speech only worth £126.50 to you?

Sparky,

No, the mayor isn't my type at all. For a start, he's a he this year!

I don't disagree with politics. Politics, whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, forms a central part of every persons life. It's politicians (plural) that get on my t*ts. I get involved in the count (a) because, even though I don't as a rule agree with politicians as a whole, the degree of freedom given by the checks and controls placed on them by the democratic process is *usually* enough to restrain their worst excesses, and (b) because they pay me to.

In Britain, if you want to get involved with the election, contact your local council, and ask to speak to the Electoral Registration section, they should be able to tell you if they have any jobs for this year.

Re the T-shirts - I don't think it's witty - I'm just being a prat. Check the name up top.

<< I don't think it's witty - I'm just being a prat>>

Which would, ironically, be quite a good witty T shirt

Apple and Blicky, please don't bring your dislike for each other on here. Whatever happened to that thread bomb idea? We should have one now
Back on topic: I agree with az's sentiment - why is acting differently seen as a challenge to others, it seems quite strange to me. Most of my friends agree with me on certain issues, but there are massive areas where we disagree and I've had people ask how I can be friends with them, doesn't it bother me that they are strongly religious/a supporter of party X, Y, or Z or that they have different sexual preferences? It's the wierdest question, I cannot for the life of me understand why people would be challenged by such differences but they are.

Maxharley, I fear you are getting drawn into escalating any conflict that exists.

I would just say that the existence/degree/quality of provocation is a matter of opinion.