Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Are most of us born to act like sheep or are we being brainwashed?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2013 - 4:45 PM


Quote: Have you ever got on a plane at the airport?

Well, I did try thumbing a lift from passing 747s but they didn't seem to want to stop for some reason so I gave up and went to the airport instead… Wink


Quote: everyone are sheep they all cram together at the boarding gate, never understood why when on your ticket you have a seat number anyway.

That's an easy one to answer. There are always people who don't fly very often and therefore aren't properly organised before boarding. They spend ages faffing around putting stuff in the lockers, taking stuff out, putting it back somewhere else, etc., etc., blocking the aisle whilst the queue builds up behind them.

Trying to get on the plane before everyone else is a simple queue-avoidance strategy. Smile

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
15 Apr 2013 - 4:45 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit  56535 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2013 - 4:50 PM


Quote: that prevents people from making an informed choice

How do you know they are not making an informed choice? is it because if they were, they would agree with you? Is it because of a logic that says 'most press is right wing, right wing views predominate, right wing governments are in vogue, ergo it must be because the press have influenced them'?
Perhaps people do have the same basic information as yourself and come to a different conclusion. Do people need the same amount of information as yourself to make an informed choice? Or just enough information about the subjects that matter to them?


Quote: the fact that you don't think so shows how well their propaganda works! They are smart - they allow a token degree of dissent by a few well-known radical voices to give credence, ostensibly, to their 'fair-mindedness'. I'm not saying everyone of the rich ruling elite are consciously planning to control the rest of us - many are unaware of their bias,

In other words: you are rich. You may not think you are trying to control us but really you are and you just don't realise it. But I do and because you are trying to control us I need to correct your world view even though you don't realise this is necessary. So until you acknowledge the issues I care about you will be considered biased and undemocratic.



Quote: If let's say the left-wing factions controlled most of the media, wouldn't you say that was a bit undemocratic and bad for democracy?

But if the left wing controlled us in the same was, we would not realise they were controlling us and therefore would not call it undemocratic. Tongue
I take your point, though and I still don't think it holds water. If it was a majority 'Green' press would you feel so vehemently about it and champion ideas you don't agree with?


By and large I agree with your basic concerns, but when I think deeper about your comments the extensions above start to concern me as much as the issues you raise.

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102290 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2013 - 5:25 PM


Quote: Unfortunately it is increasingly clear that the internet is making things worse not better: people are far more able to find and limit themselves to content that matches their own limited world view and totally avoid anything that contradicts it. And cod-scientific websites like the 9/11 conspiracies or the MMR controversy can put totally spurious evidence forward and create unwarranted panic.

Yes, but you shouldn't say that a website is 'cod-scientific' unless you have evidence to the contrary. I would agree, for example, that a number of the 9/11 conspiracy sites are just plain silly and probably totally wrong and they just confuse the issue - but not all...
I find it quite impossible to believe that 9/11 was an inside job and yet 3000 architects and engineers in the US are asking the same questions as myself: How did those buildings go into free-fall when no other building in the world has collapsed like they did - except by an act of demolition.
The architects and engineers say that NIST, the investigative body that was supposed to have clinically and painstakingly examined the evidence behind the collapse of the towers, has been unable to give (or chosen not to give) adequate reasons for the manner of their collapse.
The Architects and Engineers mention numerous examples of obfuscations and hiding of evidence re: 9/11. So was the NIST enquiry a whitewash? If not, then why did it not do a proper professional job on such an overwhelmingly serious issue? Why hide evidence?
My job isn't to give answers on this issue but surely, something is very very wrong here and I applaud those who refuse to allow the issue to be 'brushed under the carpet' - whether we want to label them conspiracy theorists or not.


Quote: I need to correct your world view even though you don't realise this is necessary. So until you acknowledge the issues I care about you will be considered biased and undemocratic.


No! I would agree with you if only you'd said 'So until you acknowledge the issues we i.e. millions upon millions of ordinary people, care about you will be considered biased and undemocratic. Would the Bankers have got away with their little scam if the we ordinary citizens had our say? Of course not.

collywobles
15 Apr 2013 - 5:36 PM


Quote: but not all...

Oh come on Garth, you still don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy surely.............. that's taking the cake a bit don't you think.....

I just saw Elvis in the local Fish n Chip. (8o)

mikehit
mikehit  56535 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2013 - 5:38 PM


Quote: 'So until you acknowledge the issues we i.e. millions upon millions of ordinary people, care about you will be considered biased and undemocratic.

Again, you are making the assumption that people didn't acknowledge them and wilfully disregarded what you thought was important.
And regards the 'we', you are assuming that what matters to you matters to 'millions'. Maybe it is millions - maybe more millions disagree (hence the election outcome).


Quote: Would the Bankers have got away with their little scam if the we ordinary citizens had our say? Of course not

Countless articles have been written over the last 20 years about how the bubble was unsustainable. About how Brown was (latterly) overspending on welfare and the NHS. About how people were taking out too much credit. So how you can say that there was not information out there is beyond me. Did people care? No - because they were doing rather well out of it thank you very much. It was only when it went wrong that people complained about being duped. That is wilful blindness and you see the same acceptance/blame pattern after every bubble bursts.
You seem to have this view that if everyone were given enough information they would make sensible decisions, but 'informed' does not necessarily equal 'sensible'. because people on the whole vote according to self-interest, whether it affects them or their community. It has been known for decades that asking people to vote for (eg) a bigger NHS is one thing, asking people to vote for you on the basis that taxes will go up to pay for it is quite another.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139495 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2013 - 11:01 PM


Quote: Trying to get on the plane before everyone else is a simple queue-avoidance strategy

Absolutely............ but I usually manage to spoil it by not being able to find my rightful seat! Blush Grin

samueldilworth
16 Apr 2013 - 1:06 AM


Quote: Have you ever got on a plane at the airport?, everyone are sheep they all cram together at the boarding gate, never understood why when on your ticket you have a seat number anyway.

With the low-cost airlines you don’t have a seat number. In fact, this lack of seat numbers is a market-driven solution to one of the thorniest problems in commercial aviation: how to get people to board quickly, thus reducing turnaround times and increasing the plane’s time in the air (where it makes money; it burns money at a shocking rate while on the ground). Southwest Airlines figured out that if you don’t give people seat numbers they practically stampede onto the plane, greatly reducing boarding times.

The reasons that people stampede onto the plane are varied and sundry, from wanting to sit together in groups of families or friends, to wanting an aisle seat, to wanting a window seat, to wanting a seat far from babies or fat people, to wanting a seat near the toilet or far from the toilet, to wanting plenty of baggage locker space. The point is most people have some sort of preference, and rush aboard to get it.

samueldilworth
16 Apr 2013 - 1:39 AM

Continuing, since I had another thought. Don’t get me wrong: I wouldn’t queue for a plane seat if you paid me – I’m often literally the last one through the gates. But there is a much better example of sheep-like behaviour in airports than the boarding-gate queue. It’s seen at the baggage-reclaim conveyor belt.

Without fail, hoards of mouth-breathing morons descend on the conveyor belt before it has even begun moving, much less conveying. And not content with merely scuffing their Nikes against the conveyor, some of them – or their feral children – actually sit on the belt. When it starts moving (I always hope one of the toddlers gets minced at this point, but it never happens) a solid row of people, literally bent over at the waist to peer up the belt, blocks any and all sight-lines to the luggage.

Obviously, but apparently not, the rational thing to do would be for everyone to stand fully six feet away from the belt, so that everyone can watch the luggage and leap in only when they spot their bag. And it doesn’t take a whole family to spot two garish, overloaded suitcases – honest! Assign your strongest traveller to conveyor-belt duty and take the rest of the family somewhere far, far away – out of my way, for instance.

This is crowd behaviour at its worst. Standing so close to the conveyor belt benefits no-one, not even the myopes who perpetuate it. It slows everyone down. It makes the airport experience even drearier than it must be. It increases my blood pressure. I do my best to whack the nearest too-close idiot with my suitcase when I snatch it from the belt, but I shouldn’t have to hand out justice like this. There should be a law.

Last Modified By samueldilworth at 16 Apr 2013 - 1:42 AM
samueldilworth
16 Apr 2013 - 1:50 AM

That would be hordes – not hoards – if I could spell or ePHOTOzine would let me edit my own posts. Thank goodness the forum software didn’t let me away with that, eh?

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2013 - 11:17 AM


Quote: I’m often literally the last one through the gates.

Ah, so when the pilot tells us "we're just waiting for the last passenger to board the plane and then we'll be pulling back", that person could well be you. Thank you. Thank you so bl**dy much. Wink

As for the conveyor belts, my tactic is to fight and claw my way past everyone who's disembarking ahead of me and to get to the belts as fast as I can so I can take up position right by the place the baggage will first appear. Fortunately, at Heathrow, the automated passport control is a real help in this as it traps large numbers of people who either don't have the new 'chipped' passports or don't trust the machines....

cambirder
cambirder  107202 forum posts England
16 Apr 2013 - 11:59 AM

We are not sheep! We are all individuals Smile

JackAllTog
JackAllTog e2 Member 53645 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2013 - 1:59 PM


Quote: No doubt a fair number of us are born to act like sheep but would you say that the majority are like that?

At what level do we act like sheep?

Yes most of us generally behave the same when observed from a distance.

Get up closer and we'll break into different behaviour & living groups.

Get to know 2 people really well and they will always be different. so No.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139495 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2013 - 10:22 PM

Some are born to be sheep, others have sheephood thrust upon them! Grin

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2013 - 6:49 AM

No need to be sheepish. Just say what ewe really think....

lemmy
lemmy  71896 forum posts United Kingdom
18 Apr 2013 - 12:01 AM


Quote: I do my best to whack the nearest too-close idiot with my suitcase when I snatch it from the belt, but I shouldn’t have to hand out justice like this. There should be a law

There is a law but it is against whacking people Grin


Quote: No need to be sheepish. Just say what ewe really think....

Yes but don't ram it down people's throats Grin

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.