Moderateman Moderateman

Cliques on Joeuser?

▼

Cliques on Joeuser?

from JoeUser Forums
I keep seeing people mention that there are cliques here on Joeuser. I wonder how does that look? What are the cliques?

Is it like the Cripes and Bloods? Or more like school yard stuff, you know, the jocks in one corner, the geeks in another, the rich folk here, the poor folk there.?

Who are these cliques? Who is in them? Are you a member of a clique here? Do you want to be?

Inquiring mind wants to know. Are there some that are leaders of said cliques? If there are leaders there must be followers, can you name them?
10,085 views 94 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
#22 by BakerStreet
Sun, June 18, 2006 7:29 PM


but the IM and email thing has been a factor in many/most of the feuds in recent joeuser history.


just as a point of reference, I exchange the rare emails with Dharma, Tex and I have exchanged one or two emails, whip and I phone yak about every two weeks.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Cliques I think are about high school groups that exclude some because they're different or not like the others.

  I think as adults we do tend to make friendships here,  and as a whole get along.  Isn't that what we're supposed to do, get along?  It seems like certain ones can be depended upon to leave us some words of support, and we can shore up those who are having a bad spot. 

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
#29 by little-whip
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:08 PM


but why would you want this removed if not to spare the good 'doctor' some embarrassment? And he should be embarrassed. Tex has done nothing to him or Trudy, nor has she even been in JU much lately. She gets dragged through the mud over and over again, and for what? For being friends with me.


because it does not belong here whip, if doc posted something I felt was inappropriate I would ask him to remove it for the same reason.

Yep I have noticed that being friends with you can be hazardous to your health.. maybe you should have some kind of surgeon general warning tattooed on yer rear., heh.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
#30 by Trudygolightly
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:13 PM


Cliques I think are about high school groups that exclude some because they're different or not like the others.
I think as adults we do tend to make friendships here, and as a whole get along. Isn't that what we're supposed to do, get along? It seems like certain ones can be depended upon to leave us some words of support, and we can shore up those who are having a bad spot.


that's what I see... some people supporting some other people, I tend to act kindly unless shit on. I support some here, some I do not, some I could care less if they excisted.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that generally we can count on certain people to support each other in a debate or a flame, either because they almost always agree, or because they have a certain level of allegiance to each other due to friendship.

I don't think that's any kind of exclusion or clique, because it's not like there are "closed" groups. It's easy to be popular and nudge your way into friendships that will back you up on here.

It takes effort, though. If you write sparingly and don't often comment on other's threads or if every.single.thing. you have to say is irrelevant or jerky, then you're probably not going to have a lot of people siding with you.

A lot of people that bitch about cliques haven't put in the effort and just want to be automatically accepted. Life doesn't work that way.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do we have cliques here? Absolutely. There are various collections of people here that will move as a pack through threads and against those they feel have slighted them, or a member of their group. But the catch here is that it's not a conscious thing. No one here sits there as they type and think "I'm a part of Group X" and act according to that. It's like mob mentality on a small scale. We have those on the site we most identify with and try to stick close to them/move in the direction they move. This is made easier because these groups form along lines of similar opinions/beliefs.

We had the liberal clique for a while...
We have the conservative clique still...
We had/have the "We Hate LW!" clique (this one comes and goes as they're eventually baited into crossing the line and getting exiled)

And there are probably a few I'm not hitting. They're never formal, and membership is typically open to anyone who shares the same core beliefs. They don't ask to join, they aren't invited (because afterall, no one does this knowingly most of the time), they just become part of that group.

But it is true, those who usually start railing against some grand conspiracy of "cliques" are the ones who haven't found their own group on the site, or who want instant acceptance. They're the ones who are fastest to claim administrative favoritism too. They're the ones who want to walk into a room and be king of the hill immediately.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
#33 by little-whip
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:26 PM


I disagree, because it is relevant to the topic.


ok then it stays, and yes I have seen people getting trashed just because they are friendly with you. Fortunatly no one has bothered me about my friendship with you, or the fact I like docguy either.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
#34 by Texas Wahine
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:29 PM


think that generally we can count on certain people to support each other in a debate or a flame, either because they almost always agree, or because they have a certain level of allegiance to each other due to friendship.


exactly. Good sumation.

don't think that's any kind of exclusion or clique, because it's not like there are "closed" groups. It's easy to be popular and nudge your way into friendships that will back you up on here.


I sure was not excluded from posting on anyones blog,. except Dabe of course. It took me time and preserverance to make "friends " here but I did because the opening was there.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
#35 by Zoomba
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:39 PM


Do we have cliques here? Absolutely. There are various collections of people here that will move as a pack through threads and against those they feel have slighted them,


can you name them? or is this generic?

We had the liberal clique for a while...


we have liberals here? bahahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
#35 by Zoomba
Sun, June 18, 2006 8:39 PM


But it is true, those who usually start railing against some grand conspiracy of "cliques" are the ones who haven't found their own group on the site, or who want instant acceptance. They're the ones who are fastest to claim administrative favoritism too.


there is admin favorites, PERIOD, no one with a brain could deny it.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because you're a man, Elie. It's far easier to bully a woman.


It ain't working.

I don't know if his intent is to make me distance myself from you or to send me into a chocolate and midol induced coma-like state to combat my (obviously hormonally caused) problematic personality, but I think he'll find that I'm quite unintimidated.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know nuthin' bout no cliques. No clicks, chirps, beeps or any other noises that shouldn't be here, at least not at last count.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
we have liberals here? bahahhhhhaaaa


Hey, there's a few of us, but we stick to the shadows. I got crucified early on for getting involved in politics threads on this site, and now I like to stay away. You know how it is.

I don't know nuthin' bout no cliques. No clicks, chirps, beeps or any other noises that shouldn't be here, at least not at last count.



Thanks for lightening things up a bit.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with zoomba. If there's any cliques I think they're pretty impromptu (is that how you spell it?). The JU cons do run in a pack when it comes to politics, but that's not surprising - they write most of the articles and tend to agree on the basics.

And I suppose you could say there's a christian lobby on JU, but (unsurprisingly) it's not that well organised. It's probably pretty hard to reconcile born agains with pragmatists, but there's often a wierd similarity there.

I think though that Little Whip is a faction all in herself. Trudy probably needs a tag-team to even begin to compete on inventiveness and funny cruelty.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

ok then it stays, and yes I have seen people getting trashed just because they are friendly with you. Fortunatly no one has bothered me about my friendship with you, or the fact I like docguy either.

Since it stays, I will show you the reason for my post, yes defending Trudy (it should have stayed that way, but then Tex had to jump in and in the process drag me in with her mistaken view that I had said anything bad about her family). But more so, again calling Tex to task.  I think that LW can more than defend herself as she has shown many times in the past.

(Dr.Guy, however, will remain blacklisted until he offers me a SERIOUS apology for the fucked up stuff he said about me and my family way back when. )

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there are cliques but they are not always very obvious. Little-Whip has a following, Dr.Guy has a following...Tex has a following.. Brad and Karma have them.... Then there are us floaters who read a little of everyone and rarely comment unless we feel it absolutely necessary or if we're fee;ing bold enough to endure whatever criticism might come our way for our 2 cents.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can't we all just ... get along?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone is saying that there isn't cliques, but from a semi-new person to JU, there most certainly are. I would rather not start saying who seems to be in what. Just wanted to give an "outside" opinion.

Is it wrong? I don't think so, it is only natural that some people will like/admire/respect some more than others. They then become friends and form little groups. It happens everywhere, in real life or online communites.

Me? I have my blogs I like to read, barely post my own, but like commenting on a certain few peoples'.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Me and the voices in my head are clique enough for me.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ZoombaPosted: Sunday, June 18, 2006


This is a great response Zoomba and one I agree with.


Um, I did use the word "clique" in one of my recent blogs. (I do believe I've used it before) so does that make me
whiny, simpering, incompetent writers who feel they should receive attention and responses equal to those of writers who put out more substantive work.
? Waaaaaaaaaaaah...sniff

(Gid no disrespect but you did put it there!)

I will boldly stand and say I've used the word because it was relevant to what I was writing. Go see my blog about being happy to be here, sorry I can't go link it now, plus I'm leaving early today and don't have the time.

I infact was penning another blog which I won't even bother to post lest I get casted into the land of "cligues"! Oy vey!




Reply By: Buddah MoskowitzPosted: Monday, June 19, 2006Me and the voices in my head are clique enough for me.


Oh Mr. Moskowitz, you have me on the floor with this one! ROFL!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Charissa KaschelPosted: Monday, June 19, 2006I think there are cliques but they are not always very obvious. Little-Whip has a following, Dr.Guy has a following...Tex has a following.. Brad and Karma have them.... Then there are us floaters who read a little of everyone and rarely comment unless we feel it absolutely necessary or if we're fee;ing bold enough to endure whatever criticism might come our way for our 2 cents.


again I ask, just because people agree or disagree on a subject does thaT MAKE them a clique?
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Sunday, June 18, 2006I don't know nuthin' bout no cliques. No clicks, chirps, beeps or any other noises that shouldn't be here, at least not at last count.


how about boops and tweets?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Monday, June 19, 2006I agree with zoomba. If there's any cliques I think they're pretty impromptu (is that how you spell it?). The JU cons do run in a pack when it comes to politics, but that's not surprising - they write most of the articles and tend to agree on the basics. And I suppose you could say there's a christian lobby on JU, but (unsurprisingly) it's not that well organised. It's probably pretty hard to reconcile born agains with pragmatists, but there's often a wierd similarity there.I think though that Little Whip is a faction all in herself. Trudy probably needs a tag-team to even begin to compete on inventiveness and funny cruelty.


agreed.

yes anyone wants to take little whip on should be ready, have a thick skin.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
NO I don't think that because people agree on a subject that that makes them a clique at all. And I'm not saying that if you're involved in a following that it makes you less of a person in any way. I don't think you can prevent cliques and they aren't necessarily bad. I think it's a common misconception that all cliques are bad... perhaps that is why people feel demeaned when identified with one. But I don't think that's the case.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
#56 by Charissa Kaschel
Mon, June 19, 2006 2:06 PM


NO I don't think that because people agree on a subject that that makes them a clique at all. And I'm not saying that if you're involved in a following that it makes you less of a person in any way. I don't think you can prevent cliques and they aren't necessarily bad. I think it's a common misconception that all cliques are bad... perhaps that is why people feel demeaned when identified with one. But I don't think that's the case.

Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful


I see! thank you for clearing it up.


MM