Shepherds vs Flocks

[WhyCzar]

Choosing which forum to place this thread I landed on Religion and Faith as all encompassing for the "metaphor of the flock" gist of this thread.

Religious institutions, governments, corporations, media systems, political organizations, are all competing to shape what people (not sheeple) believe, fear, tolerate, and demand.

They study public behavior, construct narratives, reward compliance, punish deviation, and narrow the range of choices that appear realistic.

Most people do not independently investigate every claim, institution, or event shaping their lives.

They rely on social cues, trusted authorities, familiar institutions, and the apparent consensus around them.

The people (shepherds) at the top design and profit from the system, while the masses of people (flocks) defend it, enforce its norms, and turn against anyone who challenges their "favored" shepherds.

The masses (flocks) themselves then become instruments of enforcing social norms, repeating propaganda, and isolating dissenters under the right conditioning.

That does not make them the actual architects (shepherds) of those conditions.

The distinction matters.

Participation in a system is not the same as having command over it.

Human beings are social creatures. We learn from others, depend on groups for survival, and use the behavior of those around us to interpret situations we cannot fully understand alone.

Neither virtuous or corrupt, these are basic mechanisms of social (flock) coordination.

Power (shepherd) can and does exploit that dependence.

So while pressure from "above" does not eliminate personal responsibility, it can most certainly change the conditions under which personal choices are made.

People respond to the incentives and dangers around them.

Systems of control need not rely on physical force when obedience is socially normal, materially convenient, and psychologically reassuring while resistance is isolating and can have high cost consequences.

The shepherd benefits from this division.

While the flock is divided against itself, the hand holding the "staff" escapes closer scrutiny.

Not all shepherds are benevolent.

Not all shepherds are predatory.

Not sure where I meant to go with this.

The illusion of choice?

Humans do have a tendency to follow the herd.

Why is that?

 

[Luce NDs]

"A qui" rather like a question from that book that declares "question all things" but we are not cognizant of "how" to present the proper question to get into that pool ... a que satins ... say*dire? Maybe Sah*Dei*Rae ... depending on the construct (pho net IC)!

Reason being? It just isn't there because of lack of experience in dealing with matters of emotion if derived from a long string on information, DNA, or complexity of genes placed under stress ... intimate transgression or transportation in a form of transcendence as if comes down in history as aquarian ... quite damp behind the Ayers until a bit heated ... non discernible? Perhaps because we don't know ourselves well enough and we fear knowing ...

Case of par*an*oid (form of anoia) state from listening too typical plots and layabout's over intelligent process that have gone down in folly due to excess emotional incidents ... and resultant cranking's ... the go round part was dizzied in the relation! They were sometimes know as stakes, spindles, or other fastening points ... here there might be gatherings if attractive.

Thus good, bad, ugly and beautiful depending on who arrived at the same time for a treat? Sometimes this would lead to shots at the corralling points ... and life would ooze ...

All after a flash of the penetrating madness ... when th' ought took off ... simulating and OBI as knobby event in the growing tree of time ... see deire ... its gone! Nothing left but sans ... the without! Leaving a need to get some ore ... simulates OHC 'r ... as we keep an Aye out for observation's ache ...

Towering states ... necks extended ...

 

[Mendalla]

Humans do have a tendency to follow the herd.

Why is that?

We are a social animal. While some of us can function fairly well in isolation (I'm an introvert myself so am often my own best friend), homo sapiens as a whole is a gregarious species so being part of the group and following the group is a natural tendency. Many people feel uncomfortable not being part of the group and I think it goes back to that natural gregariousness.

There is also, as I and others who have faced bullying know all too well, a tendency in the group to punish those who stand aside and to try to "herd" them back into line. "Run" a recent new song by my favourite singer Floor Jansen is all about that because she went through that, too. The bullying may just consist in identifying and ostracising outsiders, but it can devolve into outright violence (again, my experience). People have a natural fear of having to live with that so toe the line and play the game.

 

[Luce NDs]

Sometimes the bullied make the worst sort of bullies ... look what the devil did in response to being defaced by land lords!

He/she caused folk on the bottom to think more deeply than those with altitude disease ... thus we look down for the ground of existence! Quite the pity isn't it that the most emotional sector loses thought, intelligence, etc. It just blows they mind that power ... says so in some literature that power is dangerous and can cause ends to certain means and other drained mediums ... emotionally exhausted?

People will not speak of it as it is often associated with psychology and that is really scary ... myself I focussed on water and catalysts, etc. a spectrum of endocrines ... chemicals that can cause some to stare out there as steroidal effect ... some say like drugged out to a negative Heig ...

Some ancient mentors came down from the mountains as it struck ... mystified?

 

[WhyCzar]

People have a natural fear of having to live with that so toe the line and play the game.

And that is the illusion of choice.

What starts to look like mindless obedience (herd mentality) is often a response to material and social pressure.

A public stand can cost someone a job, damage a marriage, fracture a family, or drive them out of a community.

Institutions can deny opportunities, platforms, credentials, income, and access.

Friends and neighbors can impose their own penalties through ridicule, suspicion, and exclusion.

These pressures do not eliminate personal responsibility, but they change the conditions under which choices are made.

For people with little security, resistance can carry immediate consequences while compliance appears relatively safe.

And once those conditions are established, ordinary people begin enforcing them against one another.

 

[BetteTheRed]

damage a marriage

Mr. Red has been recently heard recounting that "Red has never met a social injustice she won't protest"...

 

[BetteTheRed]

These pressures do not eliminate personal responsibility, but they change the conditions under which choices are made.

Personal responsibility to whom/what? If I am required to steal to feed my child, then I have clearly identified my child's life as my personal responsibility in defiance of social and religious rules about theft.

 

[WhyCzar]

The perception of social injustice is not an objective universal truth.

When do the rights of the individual yield to the needs of the collective, and vice-versa?

 

[WhyCzar]

If I am required to steal to feed my child,

If you choose to steal to feed your child

in defiance of social and religious rules about theft.

then you also risk losing custodial responsibility for your child as punishment for defying the rules about theft.