Poisoning The Well

[NobodyYouKnow]

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of it?

It's where subject A has an 'opinion' about something, and subject B disagrees with said opinion - unfortunately, subject B has a lot of friends/associates and subject A does not.

So, subject B waits until congregation is over, or sends private messages and e-mails to other people going 'don't listen to him/her, they are crazy and don't know what they are talking about' - then they provide their own spin and interpretation on what was originally said, putting words in Subject A's mouth in order to discredit them and/or banish them from said religion.

What this doesn't take into account, is the total lack of consideration that subject B has for other people and not Subject A. 'B' doesn't credit his/her friends with having a mind of their own which they can 'make up' without their direct influence and interference.

Then, irrespective of any logic whatsoever and because they are friends/have a relationship, that clouds any logical judgment and it becomes 'an enemy of my friend is also my enemy'.

This gets passed on from friend to friend, person to person in a huge 'production line' of 'Person A is just an ignorant/uninformed/crazy dude' until they eventually find themselves 'on the outer'.

I have experienced it over and over again, recently yesterday and today.

Why must a person who disagrees with/dislikes another person because of their religious views, have to try and convince everybody else to do likewise?

Maybe others out there may have a theory on this. Thank you.

 

[sarek]

I find that quite a few people in this world do not seem inclined to think for themselves. Rather, they prefer to fall back to some, any, authority to hang on to and to back them up whether it is their religion, their family, their political leaders or their peer group.

I think it can be traced back to the strong sense humans have to want to belong. That is a primary survival driver. All socially living lifeforms on Earth have this drive, so it is far more powerful than the human intellectual function which has evolved much later.

 

[Koldo]

Why must a person who disagrees with/dislikes another person because of their religious views, have to try and convince everybody else to do likewise?

Maybe others out there may have a theory on this. Thank you.

To protect themselves and others.

It is like parents telling their children to don't be friends with others that seem to be drug users ( in the parent's perspective ).

 

[Revoltingest]

People don't handle disagreement well.
It shouldn't be taken personally.
Tis worst among people who generally agree with each other, eg, same religion.

 

[Quintessence]

I was unaware that we needed a special name for malicious gossip.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

People don't handle disagreement well.
It shouldn't be taken personally.
Tis worst among people who generally agree with each other, eg, same religion.

So true. I have read a lot of your posts and I like you because you are down to earth, funny sometimes and pull no punches. This is also evident here.

I was unaware that we needed a special name for malicious gossip.

Yes. That is what it all boils down to in the end, but it's the way it is done that's the issue.

I don't mind being 'called out' on anything, but gossip and rumours are just that.

I guess I am just disheartened by it and I know I shouldn't be.

Thank you all for your kind replies, and I shall respond to them all in turn a bit later.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of it?

It's where subject A has an 'opinion' about something, and subject B disagrees with said opinion - unfortunately, subject B has a lot of friends/associates and subject A does not.

So, subject B waits until congregation is over, or sends private messages and e-mails to other people going 'don't listen to him/her, they are crazy and don't know what they are talking about' - then they provide their own spin and interpretation on what was originally said, putting words in Subject A's mouth in order to discredit them and/or banish them from said religion.

What this doesn't take into account, is the total lack of consideration that subject B has for other people and not Subject A. 'B' doesn't credit his/her friends with having a mind of their own which they can 'make up' without their direct influence and interference.

Then, irrespective of any logic whatsoever and because they are friends/have a relationship, that clouds any logical judgment and it becomes 'an enemy of my friend is also my enemy'.

This gets passed on from friend to friend, person to person in a huge 'production line' of 'Person A is just an ignorant/uninformed/crazy dude' until they eventually find themselves 'on the outer'.

I have experienced it over and over again, recently yesterday and today.

Why must a person who disagrees with/dislikes another person because of their religious views, have to try and convince everybody else to do likewise?

Maybe others out there may have a theory on this. Thank you.

It's one of the classical tools of propaganda, along with things like glittering generalities, the bandwagon, etc. It's also one of the supposedly forbidden techniques of rhetoric--yet all good rhetoricians know and use it, and call others on it when THEY use it, when possible, because it allows one to "win" an argument without having to engage in actual discussion/debate. In logic, it's a form of ad hominen attack. It's especially common in politics and marketing. Unfortunately, it seems to come with the territory of trying to be a leader in a community by saying or doing anything at all.

 

[Jainarayan]

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of it?

Yes, it's also known as 'appeal to ridicule'. Once you are a target or a marked person, it's hard to shake the attacks, for lack of a better term right now. These attacks can come out of the blue. It says more about the attacker than it does about the attacked person.

 

[nazz]

Yes, it's also known as 'appeal to ridicule'. Once you are a target or a marked person, it's hard to shake the attacks, for lack of a better term right now. These attacks can come out of the blue. It says more about the attacker than it does about the attacked person.

I've noticed there are some posters who seem to engage in this almost exclusively.

 

[nazz]

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of it?

It's where subject A has an 'opinion' about something, and subject B disagrees with said opinion - unfortunately, subject B has a lot of friends/associates and subject A does not.

So, subject B waits until congregation is over, or sends private messages and e-mails to other people going 'don't listen to him/her, they are crazy and don't know what they are talking about' - then they provide their own spin and interpretation on what was originally said, putting words in Subject A's mouth in order to discredit them and/or banish them from said religion.

What this doesn't take into account, is the total lack of consideration that subject B has for other people and not Subject A. 'B' doesn't credit his/her friends with having a mind of their own which they can 'make up' without their direct influence and interference.

Then, irrespective of any logic whatsoever and because they are friends/have a relationship, that clouds any logical judgment and it becomes 'an enemy of my friend is also my enemy'.

This gets passed on from friend to friend, person to person in a huge 'production line' of 'Person A is just an ignorant/uninformed/crazy dude' until they eventually find themselves 'on the outer'.

I have experienced it over and over again, recently yesterday and today.

Why must a person who disagrees with/dislikes another person because of their religious views, have to try and convince everybody else to do likewise?

Maybe others out there may have a theory on this. Thank you.

I think it is because we are social creatures. We like to have people agree with us.

 

[Amechania]

It's bullying and only a coward resorts to such tactics. To get approval and affirmation of others the bully singles out the one who is unique and tries to get up a gang against you because he hasn't got the balls to take yuo on himself: juvenile.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it's also known as 'appeal to ridicule'. Once you are a target or a marked person, it's hard to shake the attacks, for lack of a better term right now. These attacks can come out of the blue. It says more about the attacker than it does about the attacked person.

And the attackers are often unaware of how poorly it reflects upon them, especially
when birds of a feather join in the dogpile to give positive feedback for ridicule.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I think it is because we are social creatures. We like to have people agree with us.

I have never really been a 'social creature' and maybe that's why it's difficult for me to understand. I don't want people to agree with me. If they do, that's fine, if they don't, that's ok too.

I have always been the first one to 'agree to disagree' at an impasse, however, there are also some who will say, 'I disagree, but cannot even agree to that'. Those people usually get ignored after that and vice versa.

There are a lot of people who just ignore me and I prefer to be left alone anyway.

All this 'conspiracy' just goes to show the general 'sheep mentality' of humans.

A lot of the time, I hear things like 'being social is human nature'....'being competitive is human nature'....'being greedy is human nature'...humans love to attribute a lot of their personal behaviours as being 'human nature' in order to justify them doing it.

I look at myself...I am not like that...it is not 'human nature' to me, so am I human? lol

 

[outhouse]

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of it?

.

Yes I have.

It is a sign of weakness due to the lack of merit and credibility their argument holds.



They cannot debate and resort to whatever tactic they think will work.

 

[outhouse]

You know what stops that private well poisoning?

Posting the message public.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

You know what stops that private well poisoning?

Posting the message public.

Yes, I agree totally!

 

[Jainarayan]

I've noticed there are some posters who seem to engage in this almost exclusively.

It's bullying and only a coward resorts to such tactics. To get approval and affirmation of others the bully singles out the one who is unique and tries to get up a gang against you because he hasn't got the balls to take yuo on himself: juvenile.

And the attackers are often unaware of how poorly it reflects upon them, especially
when birds of a feather join in the dogpile to give positive feedback for ridicule.

Yes, and they should be called out and reported. The mods have always asked us to police ourselves. I'm sure they appreciate it. I admit I'm on kind of a short fuse about this lately.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, and they should be called out and reported. The mods have always asked us to police ourselves. I'm sure they appreciate it. I admit I'm on kind of a short fuse about this lately.

As long as they are posting opinion its not really against any rules.

Messages are not private.

 

[nazz]

Yes, and they should be called out and reported. The mods have always asked us to police ourselves. I'm sure they appreciate it. I admit I'm on kind of a short fuse about this lately.

I don't like reporting people. It makes me feel like a tattle tale and not man enough to take the licks.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes it happens. To the person who receives such a PM, (not the attacking one, but the one asking for your support) there is that moment of decision. I admit I have fallen to it, and then in retrospect wish I hadn't responded. Often by then it is too late. But it is just as equally likely to take the other stance and defend the person who is being attacked. Neutrality is the logical choice when drawn into such things. How many of us have had good friends in RT who got divorced, and each went after our support?