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?
10,101 views 94 replies
Reply #51 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.


Trust me. There aren't. If there were, I would most certainly know, as, while I might break the "top ten" users and blog sites, I would certainly not remain there without being a part of a "clique".

Liking someone's work and respecting them isn't being part of a clique, it is simply reading what interests you. With everything posted on JU, I simply do not have the time to read everything written. I read new writers, sure, but they need to "hook" me with insightful writing before I will make a regular stop. I have limited time online, and I need to use it as efficiently as possible.

People tend to flock to topics, not writers. If I write an article on the Seattle Mariners, for instance, nobody reads it. My articles on religion likewise frequently go unnoticed. Because those just are not hot topics on JU. If I were part of a clique, as the idea of cliques would suggest, I'd have 20 comments on my article on the Randy Johnson suspension as well as on my articles about politics. The fact that I don't would indicate it is the topics I write about, NOT me, that people are drawn to.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and, by the way, while LW has a following, she will also be one of the first to tell you she has some of her own articles sink like a stone, almost entirely unnoticed. "Having a following" does not a clique make.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
#59 by Gideon MacLeish
Mon, June 19, 2006 2:15 PM


Oh, and, by the way, while LW has a following, she will also be one of the first to tell you she has some of her own articles sink like a stone, almost entirely unnoticed. "Having a following" does not a clique make.


I am pretty sure we all have had articles that stunk the place up.. bombed, died, with nary a whimper.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am pretty sure we all have had articles that stunk the place up.. bombed, died, with nary a whimper.


That's what I'm saying, though. If there really WERE cliques on JU, the people inside those cliques WOULDN'T have those sorts of articles. Their accolytes would be hunting them down to fawn over them.

It's really just an excuse by substandard bloggers to justify the lack of attention their work gets.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
61 by Gideon MacLeish
Mon, June 19, 2006 2:53 PM


That's what I'm saying, though. If there really WERE cliques on JU, the people inside those cliques WOULDN'T have those sorts of articles. Their accolytes would be hunting them down to fawn over them.

It's really just an excuse by substandard bloggers to justify the lack of attention their work gets.


I agree completely. I do remember when I was NOT A STAR!!! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
#62 by little-whip
Mon, June 19, 2006 3:01 PM


Cliques are defined by people who don't feel part of one, period.

Like 'trolling,' the term is subjective.


like slut is subjective too? heh heh heh
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
You say you need him to do this because you aren't 'loved like FS or InBloom


That ISN'T what I said. Get YOUR facts straight.

This is sick and twisted, trudy, it really is. What was the point of saying all those 'nice' things about Tex only to turn around and slam her like that? What was the point of bringing her into it AT ALL if your problem is with ME? What would admin have to 'get even' with me about? I have no problems with the admins here, and never have!


All of those things were said by YOU, YOU'RE the one that said, on YOUR blog at Blogspot that "you should have power status Tex, not Trudy, you're more popular, a better writer than Trudy" and I just used them to say "so what?" and added she's also younger and prettier"....I was quoting you to show "so what?"

If it's ANY of YOUR business, and it isn't, I have to agree that adding her into the mix wasn't the best choice, and she has my apology.




There wasn't any anoymous poster, it was your friends Debra and John, remember now??

The only thing twisted and sick here is you, twisting things around and blaming me after you wrote that nasty little intro, about me, to your stabbing article.

And I say to you, "SO WHAT" if I use titles that might capture someone's eye?? So What???

I do say LW, your article titled something about your itchy titties was a bit over the top in a bid to get readers....

You point your finger and scream and blame, yet you're doing the exact same thing you say others do...now THAT is twisted.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok whip and trudy, enough!, at least here. I am going to Let the posts stand as is. but NO MORE!
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok, I just wanted a chance to respond, thank you
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon must have a different definition of clique than I do. I don't recall any of the cliques in high school preventing me from taking classes or making good grades. The relative handful of people that are being talked about here can't make or break articles, nor do I think that anyone is blaming 'cliques' for articles not doing well. If they have I haven't seen it.

To me the most obvious evidence is the fact that the tolerance of particular opinions is weighted by how people are perceived. I guarantee that Dr. Guy could write and identical article to Bahu, and several of the regular posters here would work to find parts they agree with on Dr. Guy's, but Bahu's would be ripped to shreds with little leeway given.

This doesn't have anything to do with "popularity" per se, unless you consider the handing out of "cookies" and bumps popularity, which I don't. It has to do with the ability of a particular group to tolerate x statement from one person, even with misgivings, when they would roast another person with the same exact opinion.

That benefit of the doubt is what really makes a place hospitable or intolerable. Moderateman, for instance, would never call me down for relentlessly jabbing Col Gene, but when I take issue, over and over, with a position that he posts over and over, he can't for the life of him understand why I am hounding him.

In the end, cliques are about tolerance. The 'golden girl' in high school could get away with getting caught picking her nose, but other kids would be marked for life as booger-eaters. It's obvious around here that there is a short list of people who have grown so used to having total tolerance of their opinions that they can't understand it when they are treated like the booger-eaters they revile as a hobby.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet:
That benefit of the doubt is what really makes a place hospitable or intolerable. Moderateman, for instance, would never call me down for relentlessly jabbing Col Gene, but when I take issue, over and over, with a position that he posts over and over, he can't for the life of him understand why I am hounding him.


The ironic part of this is, I thought me and you were in the same clique. Sure, we agree, disagree, and sometimes infuriate each other, but I don't consider a "clique" a group of people who agree all the time.

To me.. the "clique" I'm in consists of the people whose names I look forward to seeing when I come to JU. They are the people who have kept me here, and the ones who will keep me coming long after I quit promoting my JU blog and open up a new one.

I like the "clique" I've come to know here. My purposes for blogging have expanded beyond what is possible here, but that doesn't mean I want to leave the "clique" or community.

Sure, Dr. Guy is probably my most prolific commenter, and me and Moderate Man may never have disagreed, but I have been "called to the carpet" by you, Texas Wahine, Dharma, and KingBee... all of whom I like to read and would love to meet someday.. (and no, not in a dark alley.) ;~D
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to agree on "benefit of the doubt" though. There was a time when I wanted to see just how far I could go in my little shotfest at ColGene. I know I went further than most who have been cast into the Banned By Brad Brew... and yet never was even threatened.

I all but stopped... because I got bored
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Sure, we agree, disagree, and sometimes infuriate each other, but I don't consider a "clique" a group of people who agree all the time."


Absolutely. Lots of these people disagree with one another, but do they save their 'trolling' points so that they can offset the points they give each other when they argue? I can disagree with Moderateman over and over, but I doubt I am a 'nattering nabob' worthy of writing a 'please stop feeding the troll' article about.

That's the point, ParaTed. Of course you and I can disagree, but I can count on you guys taking the time to read the article and weighing it objectively. There are a few people here that don't get that consideration from one of the cliques in question, and you can tell from the overall makeup of the forums these days that it doesn't lead them to consider this a pleasant place.

Go look at the reaction Stevendedalus got for his Haditha article. Any of the 'righties' around here could have written that and gotten 'cookies' for it. I speculated on the soldiers in question being guilty, and no one told me that I was 'without honor', and I sure as hell don't have the laurals that stevendedalus has to back up my opinions on the subject. That doesn't matter, though, because stevendedalus is one of the ones that people read with knives drawn, along with Kingbee, Bahu, and others.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean, when you read something like:

"Look I know it's fun to argue with the clueless one. Heck, I do it myself. But he's getting to big for his britches. Try this.....for every post you put on his blog, give him 3 trolling cookies. I do it every day regardless of whether I post or not."


doesn't that scream 'clique' to you?
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
""Sure, we agree, disagree, and sometimes infuriate each other, but I don't consider a "clique" a group of people who agree all the time."

I completely agree! To take it one step further I would say that they definately don't agree all the tme and that's part of the reason they work together... so that they can learn from each other.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guarantee that Dr. Guy could write and identical article to Bahu, and several of the regular posters here would work to find parts they agree with on Dr. Guy's, but Bahu's would be ripped to shreds with little leeway given.


I guarantee you would be wrong and challenge you on it.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll agree that Bahu's "Blame the U.S. For Everything, All the Time, no matter what" attitude gets to me. For me, Stevendedalus is one who I'll disagree with most the time, but I usually enjoy his writing. That Haditha did set me off something fierce, but I already came clean to why.

KingBee, is my favorite lefty here! Rarely agree on politics, but get along great with most everything else. He'll take my crap just fine, and seems willing to dish it out... and we'll still have the bratwurst we're lookng forward to someday.

The thing is, it isn't the people themselves that set me off or not. I love the times I can agree with any of those you mention... when I can't agree, I look forward to when I can at least see their point.

But again, "where goes the benefit of the doubt, so goes the heart"... so I completely agree that the people I expect to disagree with, I usually come off pretty disagreeable with. ;~D
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I guarantee you would be wrong and challenge you on it.'


...challenge me to do... what? Write a lefty blog for you and make Bahu write an identical one? Eh... I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is if it made any sense.

"But again, "where goes the benefit of the doubt, so goes the heart"... so I completely agree that the people I expect to disagree with, I usually come off pretty disagreeable with. ;~D"


and it really didn't hurt anything so long as there was an opposing front on the other side. I just think that things have gotten so meager around here on the left that anyone posting from that perspective can count on a stream of unfettered rage and a whisper of support.

In the end, that's what cliques really do. Col Gene is a golden example of why Gideon is wrong. He's ass ignorant in the opinions of many here, and yet he reaps huge yeilds in terms of visibility. If visibility is the issue to Gid, then of course there'd be no cliques here.

But the problem is the most reviled often get as much 'attention' as the people who are well-loved. Attention doesn't make the place hospitable, though. I'm not saying that we should go easy on people, not in the least. I'm saying that if we value having people with which to differ, we should at least grant them the same benefit of the doubt so as to make them feel welcome.

There's damn precious few of them left. That isn't because they are wrong and we are right and they just want to be agreed with all the time, at least for some. I think it has more to do with their opinions receiving respect, even when they are differed with. Now, though, we consider people who consistantly post opinions that we differ with to be 'trolls', even when they never venture off their own blogs...
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
67 by Trudygolightly
Mon, June 19, 2006 7:23 PM


ok, I just wanted a chance to respond, thank you


tis ok I just wanted everyone concerned to have their say.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
#68 by BakerStreet
Mon, June 19, 2006 7:57 PM


That benefit of the doubt is what really makes a place hospitable or intolerable. Moderateman, for instance, would never call me down for relentlessly jabbing Col Gene, but when I take issue, over and over, with a position that he posts over and over, he can't for the life of him understand why I am hounding him.


you have lost all sense of reality have you not? One is impersonal that would be gene, the other is personal that would be me. I hope this oversimplification reaches what I see in a ever shrinking sense of right and wrong.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't recall seeing that one. Anyway, I never said the popular gal was applauded for picking her nose, only that she wouldn't be considered a booger-eater the next time people bumped into her, as the other kids are.

"you have lost all sense of reality have you not? One is impersonal that would be gene, the other is personal that would be me. I hope this oversimplification reaches what I see in a ever shrinking sense of right and wrong."


No, I don't see the difference. Granted, after years of the Col's articles anyone would see him with a bias, but "personal"? No, I don't think that is the issue at all. I've seen plenty of personal jabs consistantly thrown back and forth on the Col's blogs. To me, the shock and outrage I get when I jab you consistantly on one point shows that you expect a clear line to be drawn between the people who should be jabbed, and the people that expect the gloves to stay on, personal or otherwise.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
71 by BakerStreet
Mon, June 19, 2006 8:18 PM


Go look at the reaction Stevendedalus got for his Haditha article. Any of the 'righties' around here could have written that and gotten 'cookies' for it.


bull shit! I did not jump on steven, because he is such a wusie boy, but anyone writting an article condemning the marines with no evidence except the poison of their tiny little liberal hearts, I would beat to death in print.and if a conservative stepped up to bat with the same bullshit, be it whip, doc guy doc miler you or ted, I would jump on/

Get over yourself baker.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know I'm coming in very late, but the way I see it, whenever a large group of people get together, be it in real life or online, cliques, for the want of a better word, form naturally. There is nothing wrong with this, it is normal social behaviour. There are some clearly identifiable cliques here (e.g. the political and the religious groups, the mothers, the teens) but these groups don't necessarily contain themselves to their 'categories', thankfully. People are always going to gravitate to those they agree with or those who agree with them.

My two cents worth...
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
#72 by BakerStreet
Mon, June 19, 2006 8:22 PM


Look I know it's fun to argue with the clueless one. Heck, I do it myself. But he's getting to big for his britches. Try this.....for every post you put on his blog, give him 3 trolling cookies. I do it every day regardless of whether I post or not."


doesn't that scream 'clique' to you?


no it screams ONE PERSON trying to GATHER more people to follow his lead.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
#77 by little-whip
Mon, June 19, 2006 8:50 PM


guarantee that Dr. Guy could write and identical article to Bahu, and several of the regular posters here would work to find parts they agree with on Dr. Guy's, but Bahu's would be ripped to shreds with little leeway given.


Dunno about 'the good doctor' but I seem to recall Modman himself taking a hellova beating from his own clique on an article posted not long ago about goverment spying on citizens.

Kinda blows that theory, Baker.


naw nothing will change bakers mind, "he has joined the blues brothers and is "ON A MISSION FOR GOD"