Interesting that you would make that observation in a thread that contains in its subject nary a hint of the political. But I suppose when the only tool you have is the ad hominem hammer….

As for diversity, what we primarily have here is a gathering of folks who interpret their faith through the lens of right-wing conservative politics. It may be a motley group in terms of waistlines, body hair, or any number of other accidents–but it’s not anything close to what one could call a thriving marketplace of ideas, or even of conservative Christian ideas. Excessive inbreeding has rendered most of commentary here remarkably inept (but still unanimously considered brilliant, of course).

And one needn’t be invested in the mismanaged oil rig to still care about the world it pollutes.

It’s not exactly a pleasant place to be, but there’s some satisfaction in calling attention to what’s wrong and deleterious about the management.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t find that kind of activity satisfying unless it’s an establishment that matters to me, one I care about. Otherwise wisdom leads me to let go and let things be. If that’s what’s on your heart, well, thank you for caring.

Anyway, I recall being taught about groupthink in introductory psych, and being expected to agree with the psychology community at large that such a phenomenon exists. In other words, the very concept of groupthink entails that not all group agreement is groupthink.

There is no evidence here of the kind of interdependent, highly-personally-invested social structure that tends to foster groupthink. In fact, studies show that one strong dissenting voice in a group is usually enough to prevent groupthink from forming. It’s clear you have mislabeled and possibly also misunderstood what’s going on here.

The groupthink here is really something else.

I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one, Mr. Baker.

Brilliant!

Cheers,

Adam

And what voice of dissent would this be? You haven’t provided any counter opinion or intellectual substance of your own. It seems the only service you provide is to be a shunt of any thoughtful growth whatsoever.

I now see that these responses are simply grooming your own self-obliged ego with which you view yourself as a “voice of dissent” when in reality you are simply a contrarian who appears to be bored. As such, I’m just going to ignore you. Because of your lack of ACTUAL opinion and condescending statements, you have lost all credibility that I would normally give to someone on this blog (which is ample, I assure you) with me, and therefore my respect. I am well aware that this means absolutely nothing to you, but I hope that one day you can emulate JMR and have your own self reflection.

This post, and the ensuing comments, had nothing to do with Mr. Reynolds’ vision for the world, whatever that might be. All that he did was call out a wannabe “edgy” writer and showed Frey to be the celebrity-seeking joke that he is (and he was much kinder and more self-deprecating than the secularist author of the referenced AMERICAN SPECTATOR piece I might add). I’m not sure what “dissent” that you think you are providing. You stated that you had no sympathy for Frey. Do you take exception to Reynolds calling him out?

And you still haven’t told us what critical thinking community takes you seriously as a thinker…

And never to have to answer substantively for that dissent. Weaving and dodging, zigging and zagging. Always there to boost a self-imposed self-importance.