"Don't blame the rioters, blame peer pressure"

[sharkman]

A letter to the editor appeared in today's National Post in which a lawyer defended the rioters in Vancouver. It got me thinking about what is right and what is wrong, and how we determine this which dictates how we live our lives. Here is an excerpt:

Before we rush to judge her and others, we should remember that we would probably act in exactly the same manner, in her position. The tendency to act like those around us is fundamental to the functioning of society. It is generally a very desirable trait and is almost always beneficial. More than that, it is virtually impossible to go against. For example, when was the last time you wore clothes that were not appropriate to your status or group, or the last time you sat through a standing ovation at a concert?

The comment that peer pressure is virtually impossible to go against is quite striking. I am deeply saddened that a successful accomplished person(a lawyer no less) thinks that peer pressure is impossible to go against. But he's convinced of this, and with all of the commentary I've heard it's obvious that many people feel the same. It's the idea that if we are surrounded by other people who are engaging in a certain type of behaviour, that we are unable to resist and will conform to the group. And therefore, we are not responsible for our actions at that point.

Does this sound reasonable to you? Can you recall a situation where you experienced such pressure and you were unable to resist?

[ToadBrother]

Does this sound reasonable to you? Can you recall a situation where you experienced such pressure and you were unable to resist?

The fact of the matter is that there is such a thing as "mob mentality". It is true that humans, in general, and like most social animals, will conform with social norms. It really is often a case of "well, everyone was doing it." Social pressure can and has throughout history overridden morality, ethics, common sense and even a sense of self preservation.

Here's my general philosophy, stay away from potentially large emotional crowds. Even if you don't get swept up in the emotion of it all, you may just end getting hurt or killed by the mob when it finally becomes unhinged. You couldn't have paid me enough money to go into downtown Vancouver during Game 7 last week.

[Oleg Bach]

The peers are rioters and the rioters are peers. ....I blame a privleded existance and bored rich kids....Kicking in a window must have been like punching your overly generous and disconnected executive father in the face..Looks like a nice upper middle class existance does breed some resentment.

[sharkman]

So if mob mentality is what was at work here, then why did it not affect those who tried to stop the looteres? These appeared to be innocent bystanders and not cops or shop owners in some cases. Why were some able to overcome peer pressure while some, including privileged kids with all the advantages, were torching cop cars? The idea that peer pressure or mob mentality was irresistible just doesn't add up. There were plenty of people who were in the rioting area but did not take part, but were seeking a way out of there and just trying to get home.

[Oleg Bach]

So if mob mentality is what was at work here, then why did it not affect those who tried to stop the looteres? These appeared to be innocent bystanders and not cops or shop owners in some cases. Why were some able to overcome peer pressure while some, including privileged kids with all the advantages, were torching cop cars? The idea that peer pressure or mob mentality was irresistible just doesn't add up. There were plenty of people who were in the rioting area but did not take part, but were seeking a way out of there and just trying to get home.

Peer Pressure? Is that not a leftist liberal terminology that acts as a great apologist for bad behaviour? It's still a fairly new term. We never had peer pressure ---If I did something wrong...I could not say to my parents that Billy made me do it - My dad did not care about what others were doing - He cared about what YOU were doing...scape goating only works if you have a goat to take away your sins.....I did not see a lot of goats wandering around Vancouver of late.

[ToadBrother]

So if mob mentality is what was at work here, then why did it not affect those who tried to stop the looteres? These appeared to be innocent bystanders and not cops or shop owners in some cases. Why were some able to overcome peer pressure while some, including privileged kids with all the advantages, were torching cop cars? The idea that peer pressure or mob mentality was irresistible just doesn't add up. There were plenty of people who were in the rioting area but did not take part, but were seeking a way out of there and just trying to get home.

It's not a virus. It's a psychological state. Two different groups. Lynch mobs work the same way. It's not like the poor guy that's gonna get strung up is rooting on his captors.

[Oleg Bach]

It's not a virus. It's a psychological state. Two different groups. Lynch mobs work the same way. It's not like the poor guy that's gonna get strung up is rooting on his captors.

I took a tour of the G 20 area - early in the morning - I could tell where all the hot spots would be...then I went hope before the riots started - people caught up in some psychological state are usually a bit on the stupid side - for that we shall forgive them - You do not kick a dog for peeing on the floor.

[sharkman]

The excuse of peer pressure or mob mentality is a claim that you are not responsible for what you did. So every single rioter is innocent. Mob mentality may explain how these people ended up trashing downtown Vancouver, but it does not excuse their actions, no matter what the lawyer in the link says and this is an important distinction.

I think that there is something else in play. I referred to people determining what is right and wrong in a given situation and then acting on it. So in this case, people would normally think it wrong to loot or damage someone else's property. So what is the factor that has people doing something they think is wrong? How about moral relativism, which has become the norm in our society. There is no objective right or wrong. It all depends on other factors, like if several people around you are pounding on a car. Then it becomes alright, since the car would be pounded in anyway, or you are trying to impress someone of the opposite sex.

Normally, it's wrong to drink and drive but hey, you're really having a good time and it would be rude to refuse another round. But then you kill the guy out walking his dog on the way home and the judge gives you 5 years. Again, peer pressure might explain what stupid thought got into your head to get drunk when you knew you had to drive home, but it does not excuse you from the outcome. You're still responsible for your actions. And these "if it feels good, do it" idiots that riot or loot are simply choosing to commit a crime. They feel the peer pressure and do not reject it.

Many reject peer pressure every day. You just don't know it because nothing goes wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

When I was a kid I did not even know what a peer was...let alone pressure from one....okay I was the peer presuring Tommy Peterson to eat the dew worm telling him it was like Pop Eyes magic spinach,

[cybercoma]

Mob mentality does not necessarily mean that you're not responsible, but it is a verified psychological situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_behavior

[ToadBrother]

Mob mentality does not necessarily mean that you're not responsible, but it is a verified psychological situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_behavior

Oh, I'm not trying to excuse of any of this. I think at least some of the folks that took part in this were looking to recreate the 1994 riot.

[Moonlight Graham]

I have never been drunk/buzzed in my life, while virtually all of my friends and family i've ever known drink. I just have no desire to drink, therefore i choose not to. I successfully have avoided the peer pressure that is associated with social alcoholic consumption while 98% of my friends and peers have given in to this at some point. If purple polka-dot pants came into fashion i wouldn't do that either.

The lawyer has a point, but everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you are convinced to do something you know is wrong just because everyone else is doing it then what are you? A fool? A sheep? A coward? I dunno, but you aren't innocent by any means and you don't get my sympathy for participating in group riots like a friggin' idiot.

[bloodyminded]

How about moral relativism, which has become the norm in our society. There is no objective right or wrong. It all depends on other factors, like if several people around you are pounding on a car. Then it becomes alright, since the car would be pounded in anyway, or you are trying to impress someone of the opposite sex.

Or like rabid crowds cheering and delirious with pleasure at violent public executions, even if they couldn't care less about whatever crime was supposedly committed.

"Moral relativism" of this sort is an ancient characteristic, not some sort of fall of a (once "moral," presumably) civilization. It's always been "the norm in...society."

[sharkman]

Or like rabid crowds cheering and delirious with pleasure at violent public executions, even if they couldn't care less about whatever crime was supposedly committed.

"Moral relativism" of this sort is an ancient characteristic, not some sort of fall of a (once "moral," presumably) civilization. It's always been "the norm in...society."

I'm sorry, but i can't quite agree with your theory and over-the-top characterizations. Delirious with pleasure? I think you've been watching too many movies. Weren't the crimes committed the reasons that criminals were executed for? Wouldn't that spread around the grape vine as juicy bits always are?

Now, whether or not they were guilty is quite another thing, but this is all so far away from the riot in Vancouver. But if you think moral relativism is not the driver of the rioters' actions, what do you suggest has been causing riots in Canada, a place that never used to see them every few years. How come there were no riots in the 40's?

[bush_cheney2004]

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." - Donald Rumsfeld

[bloodyminded]

I'm sorry, but i can't quite agree with your theory and over-the-top characterizations. Delirious with pleasure? I think you've been watching too many movies. Weren't the crimes committed the reasons that criminals were executed for? Wouldn't that spread around the grape vine as juicy bits always are?

I didn't say they didn't know what the crimes were; I'm positing that many of them didn't care, as watching human beings executed was entertaining for them. The point wasn't always the crime, but the killing itself.

Do you honestly dispute this????

But if you think moral relativism is not the driver of the rioters' actions, what do you suggest has been causing riots in Canada, a place that never used to see them every few years. How come there were no riots in the 40's?

I'm not making claims about whether or not "moral relativism" is to blame. I'm saying that moral relativism is nothing new, and dates back to the very beginning of a moral sense itself. Perhaps you believe Marx is to blame, or Hollywood, or single mothers or something, I don't know. In any case, you're mistaken.

People have been compaining about the "new" decline in morality forever. Socrates said something about the "new" disrespect of the country's youth, didn't he?

Edited June 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[sharkman]

No claims, no suggestions, no ideas what you believe in. Yeah, throw in a Socrates quote, why not. If you can't see how morals have slipped in the last 50 years in this country then I'll leave you to your tidy world.

[bloodyminded]

No claims, no suggestions, no ideas what you believe in.

I've already told you what I believe: anyone who thinks we've slipped into "moral relativism" from a previously morally upright society is fucking stupid.

If you can't see how morals have slipped in the last 50 years in this country then I'll leave you to your tidy world.

You've got it exactly backwards. You live in a tidy world--a fantasy world of glories past and a fallen present, perhaps plagiarized from Genesis; whereas I see the moral sphere as profoundly complex and ever-shifting.

[eyeball]

How come there were no riots in the 40's?

It could simply be most of the sort of young hotshots who might have lost their cool at a hockey game were off at war.

There was a probably a fair bit of peer pressure for doing that in those days too.

[sharkman]

I picked the 40's at random. It could be the 10's, the 20's etc. The war only lasted until 45. And didn't we have conscription in WWII?

And are you also of the opinion that people can't resist peer pressure?

[Shwa]

I picked the 40's at random. It could be the 10's, the 20's etc. The war only lasted until 45. And didn't we have conscription in WWII?

And are you also of the opinion that people can't resist peer pressure?

Halifax Riot - 1945

Winnipeg General Strike - 1910

KKK in Canada in the 1920's - not a riot per se, but further commentary on the glories of past ages and likely morally relevant.

I am of the opinion that conditions can arise where people will not resist peer pressure, sometimes for the purpose of self-preservation.

[eyeball]

I picked the 40's at random. It could be the 10's, the 20's etc. The war only lasted until 45. And didn't we have conscription in WWII?

And are you also of the opinion that people can't resist peer pressure?

Sure they can. There's enough blame to go around to include the rioters but not it seems too much where authorities and public officials screwed up. Why did these ignore many of the recommendations they had in hand following the 1994 riots for example? Where they under some sort of pressure to do so?

From the letter you posted;

I also believe that people who anonymously posted cellphone videos on the Internet should be condemned. Their very presence at the riot contributed to the mob men-tality. Such voyeurs must realize that their presence is in itself a cause of the riot, just as much as their action of participating in a standing ovation at a concert forces others to stand up and clap.

These remind me of people that stand around a fight cheering it on and they also remind me of those who constantly clamor for a more severe justice system every time there is an event with the potential to galvanize and outrage the public.

This riot is enough of a wet-dream for the mob-mentality that's driving our society towards becoming a police state that it really does make me wonder if there isn't some element of truth to the notion that agent's provocateur didn't foment this riot. It's a least as plausible/ridiculous as the police's contention that organized nihilists and anarchists did.

The bottom line is that in the wake of this riot you can bet the power of both the police and the state to go after people will increase not decrease.

So...cui bono?

Edited June 26, 2011 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

No claims, no suggestions, no ideas what you believe in. Yeah, throw in a Socrates quote, why not. If you can't see how morals have slipped in the last 50 years in this country then I'll leave you to your tidy world.

So tell me. Were things more moral in the 1940s, when interracial marriages were frowned upon, and in some jurisdictions even banned? How about 100 years ago, when most jurisdictions viewed women as not even being legal persons, and could not vote? How about 200 years ago, when slavery was seen as perfectly legitimate in many parts of the world? How about three or four hundred years ago, where being a Jew or a pagan was a positively dangerous thing to openly declare?

[sharkman]

Sorry, I don't want to impose on the view that morals and ethics have always stayed the same throughout history. It seems to bother people to think that the West is in moral decline so I'll just leave that thought alone. Happy happy.

[sharkman]

Sure they can. There's enough blame to go around to include the rioters but not it seems too much where authorities and public officials screwed up. Why did these ignore many of the recommendations they had in hand following the 1994 riots for example? Where they under some sort of pressure to do so?

From the letter you posted;

These remind me of people that stand around a fight cheering it on and they also remind me of those who constantly clamor for a more severe justice system every time there is an event with the potential to galvanize and outrage the public.

This riot is enough of a wet-dream for the mob-mentality that's driving our society towards becoming a police state that it really does make me wonder if there isn't some element of truth to the notion that agent's provocateur didn't foment this riot. It's a least as plausible/ridiculous as the police's contention that organized nihilists and anarchists did.

The bottom line is that in the wake of this riot you can bet the power of both the police and the state to go after people will increase not decrease.

So...cui bono?

All I know is it's scary to me to hear otherwise well adjusted successful youths have pretty much no idea what made them go rabid. And then to hear from those such as the lawyer make such idiotic excuses for their behaviour and suggest that anyone would act exactly the same had he been in their shoes that night. Something is not right with that picture.

It reminds me of when my wife catches a kid red handed cheating on a math exam. He then gets a zero, so the kid goes to his parents who side with the teacher and say,"that's what you get for cheating, son. You also get no car for 2 weeks." Actually, no, that's not what happens. They appeal to the principal, who allows a re-test. And so enters the world another young dolt who thinks he can cheat when he 'needs' to.

Edited June 27, 2011 by sharkman