Lynch Mob Attitude

[phibunmike]

There are often posts which promote what might be called the "lynch mob" or "witch hunt" system of 'justice' (you can probably already tell which side of this I am approaching the subject from).

A few recent examples include celebration of the beating-to-death of man by a mob at the Erawan Shrine, promoting violence against a beggar in Bangkok because he is caucasian, and suggesting a variety of non-standard surgical procedures to be imposed upon someone accused (but not convicted) of having sex with a minor.

The number of posters who apparently support bypassing the law and applying these measures absolutely shocks and surprises me; which leads to me asking myself a question, and thence to asking this forum that same question:

In my experience elsewhere (outside the forum - yes, there is another world out there ) I have not previously encountered this same level of support for "mob-rule", nor anywhere near it. So, I think one of the following must be true, and I am curious to ask fellow TVers which they think apply (or to add alternatives if I have missed them).

a) I have previously misjudged the opinions of most people I have met and talked to;

b ) TV members have a much higher percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

c) The people I have met elsewhere have a much lower percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

d) People express themselves differently when on TV - perhaps taking advantage of the anonymity of the medium.

(d) above could then be split into further options: (i) they are more honest on TV; (ii) they are less honest on TV; or (iii) they don't really think that way, they are just venting anger or frustration.

I tend to believe it is a combination of (b ) and d(iii) - but I must admit I am rather afraid that it might be (c ). Any ideas anyone ?

By the way, the underlying question is an analysis of the dominant opinions of the population - I think arguments for or against "mob-rule" are better dealt with elsewhere, and in fact have been dealt with in other threads on specific issues.

Edit>> corrected to b )

Edited March 24, 2006 by phibunmike

[Jaffy]

I think this is a very relevant point you raise Khun Phibunmike.

In my experience here at TV, I have come across a similar attitude, especially toward the ILLEGAL war in Iraq & the attitude to muslims, middle easterners & arabs. This is despite a most distinct shift away in the support for the lieing, cheating governmets of the UK & US.

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I find it incredibly sad that Thailand attracts this type of person....

[britmaveric]

I think this is a very relevant point you raise Khun Phibunmike.

In my experience here at TV, I have come across a similar attitude, especially toward the ILLEGAL war in Iraq & the attitude to muslims, middle easterners & arabs. This is despite a most distinct shift away in the support for the lieing, cheating governmets of the UK & US.

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I find it incredibly sad that Thailand attracts this type of person....

Perhaps you should look in the mirror mate before you start pointing fingers.

[saeb]

There are often posts which promote what might be called the "lynch mob" or "witch hunt" system of 'justice' (you can probably already tell which side of this I am approaching the subject from).

A few recent examples include celebration of the beating-to-death of man by a mob at the Erawan Shrine, promoting violence against a beggar in Bangkok because he is caucasian, and suggesting a variety of non-standard surgical procedures to be imposed upon someone accused (but not convicted) of having sex with a minor.

The number of posters who apparently support bypassing the law and applying these measures absolutely shocks and surprises me; which leads to me asking myself a question, and thence to asking this forum that same question:

In my experience elsewhere (outside the forum - yes, there is another world out there ) I have not previously encountered this same level of support for "mob-rule", nor anywhere near it. So, I think one of the following must be true, and I am curious to ask fellow TVers which they think apply (or to add alternatives if I have missed them).

a) I have previously misjudged the opinions of most people I have met and talked to;

b ) TV members have a much higher percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

c) The people I have met elsewhere have a much lower percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

d) People express themselves differently when on TV - perhaps taking advantage of the anonymity of the medium.

(d) above could then be split into further options: (i) they are more honest on TV; (ii) they are less honest on TV; or (iii) they don't really think that way, they are just venting anger or frustration.

I tend to believe it is a combination of (b ) and d(iii) - but I must admit I am rather afraid that it might be (c ). Any ideas anyone ?

By the way, the underlying question is an analysis of the dominant opinions of the population - I think arguments for or against "mob-rule" are better dealt with elsewhere, and in fact have been dealt with in other threads on specific issues.

Edit>> corrected to b )

Alas, mob rule does tend rule in every country amongst certain segments of their populations.

A social demographic map would be interesting vis a vis different countries and cultures.

Certainly in the U.K. we had the fascinating case of a mob burning a Paediatrician out of her house because the mob thought she was a paedophile.

Mob rule works to a common fear of a single denominator and which is instigated by an individual who in full knowledge, knows and understands that a rumour once started will grow.

Propaganda is this very thing.

Examples:

1. Thais think that foreigners have b.o. because they eat cheese.

2. During the war years: Japanese pilots could not fly at night because they had a vitamin deficiency.

3. Iraqi citizens were responsible for the whole business of 9/11.

4. Throughout the 1930's Jews were seen as a plague in Europe and demonised accordingly by various governments. (The notable exceptions being the Dutch and Danish).

I have seen at first hand what a mob can do in various countries and indeed, their different rational

to justify their actions.

But then of course we have to get into the realm of government approved mobs ;

I was in BKK in 92' when the squaddies were shooting people who were protesting the actions of their government.

I was in Belfast in 76' when everyone was shooting everyone else for as yet undeterminded reasons.

I was in the U.K. when Margaret Thatcher decided to break the coal miners strike - and used members of the military in police uniforms to help with the numbers.

A member of a mob will never admit wrong, the justification being that "Everyone else was doing it".

And post 1945 it was virtually impossible to meet anyone who would admit to being a follower of Nazism during that time in Europe.

I believe the original poster is confusing savagery' or barbarism' with mob.

And of course by no-one interceding in the beating / killing of the man who vandalised the Erawan shrine, does that make them part of a mob - or just as guilty as the murderers for not trying to stop the violence?.

Who wears a football shirt to go drinking?. And why?. It's all a belonging thing you see.............

[suegha]

An interesting post by saeb.

I think that it's indicitive of human nature! The reason why the law says 'innocent until proven guilty' is that most people respond with a knee jerk reaction to events rather than gather the facts. We may also, as people, have a 'hidden' desire for the sensational. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and all that.

In response to the OP. I feel we have an identical amount on tv as in the world at large, but that the platform of the forum allows people to express their views/vent their frustrations more easily.

[Patex]

phibunmike,

It is answer c ... and ... a

[mrbojangles]

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I didn't post in the thread that phibunmike refers to. And i don't consider myself supporting mob rule.

However, i will comment on your theory jaffy. It must be in the top ten of the most ridiculous statements, that i have ever heard on TV. What research did you do, to arrive at that "theory"? Or did you just conclude that anyone with a view different to yours must be into sex, drugs or other illegal acts?

[phibunmike]

I believe the original poster is confusing savagery' or barbarism' with mob.

Fair enough distinction, and yes, I suppose a mob can in theory be tolerant and peaceful. However, mobs often tend towards the basest elements within them. Put a good kid with a naughty kid - do they both end up being good ? No, they both end up being naughty !!

[phibunmike]

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I didn't post in the thread that phibunmike refers to. And i don't consider myself supporting mob rule.

However, i will comment on your theory jaffy. It must be in the top ten of the most ridiculous statements, that i have ever heard on TV. What research did you do, to arrive at that "theory"? Or did you just conclude that anyone with a view different to yours must be into sex, drugs or other illegal acts?

I must agree mrbojangles, I find that correlation seems tenuous in the extreme....

[phibunmike]

phibunmike,

It is answer c ... and ... a

Patex, I should have stated earlier - you are not allowed to vote a

[suegha]

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I didn't post in the thread that phibunmike refers to. And i don't consider myself supporting mob rule.

However, i will comment on your theory jaffy. It must be in the top ten of the most ridiculous statements, that i have ever heard on TV. What research did you do, to arrive at that "theory"? Or did you just conclude that anyone with a view different to yours must be into sex, drugs or other illegal acts?

***flame deleted***

Hold on a minute! Look what you've replied to Jaffy. (And look at the topic title) Okay, feel free to disagree, but he just expressed an opinion. I disagree with his opinion, but he is entitled to it!

[mrbojangles]

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I didn't post in the thread that phibunmike refers to. And i don't consider myself supporting mob rule.

However, i will comment on your theory jaffy. It must be in the top ten of the most ridiculous statements, that i have ever heard on TV. What research did you do, to arrive at that "theory"? Or did you just conclude that anyone with a view different to yours must be into sex, drugs or other illegal acts?

Jangles - ***flame deleted, member warned***

Thanks for clarifying that for me, Brit

[britmaveric]

If you look at his history you can see why I made that comment.

[opothai]

I think this is a very relevant point you raise Khun Phibunmike.

In my experience here at TV, I have come across a similar attitude, especially toward the ILLEGAL war in Iraq & the attitude to muslims, middle easterners & arabs. This is despite a most distinct shift away in the support for the lieing, cheating governmets of the UK & US.

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I find it incredibly sad that Thailand attracts this type of person....

do not mistake a mob rule mentality with an overall majority opinion.

your opinions and views on say the ' cheating governments of the us and uk' are your opinions but maybe not shared by the majiority of tv readers, this does not make it mob rule.

i always see the minority on this forum calling for more understanding while not wanting to understand the views of the majority.

and as for the type of people attracted to thailand it is always better and more interesting to have a make up of diverse cultures and ideas than just one boring opinionated, perfect type of people

preaching the wrong doings of other peoples lives and attitudes, would you not say.

[britmaveric]

I think this is a very relevant point you raise Khun Phibunmike.

In my experience here at TV, I have come across a similar attitude, especially toward the ILLEGAL war in Iraq & the attitude to muslims, middle easterners & arabs. This is despite a most distinct shift away in the support for the lieing, cheating governmets of the UK & US.

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I find it incredibly sad that Thailand attracts this type of person....

do not mistake a mob rule mentality with an overall majority opinion.

your opinions and views on say the ' cheating governments of the us and uk' are your opinions but maybe not shared by the majiority of tv readers, this does not make it mob rule.

i always see the minority on this forum calling for more understanding while not wanting to understand the views of the majority.

and as for the type of people attracted to thailand it is always better and more interesting to have a make up of diverse cultures and ideas than just one boring opinionated, perfect type of people

preaching the wrong doings of other peoples lives and attitudes, would you not say.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nice post.

[Guest deltakid]

i guess in many cases its just the pressure that comes from certain groups that attracts other people to join in and cause trouble.

[Indo-Siam]

I'm not sure what "mob" you are referring to - is that a mob of three persons - divided across a handful of incidents? Five persons? Maybe eight persons? A mob? Are you perhaps WILDLY EXAGGERATING? (I write this to make a point that will be developed later)

At any rate, I don't know if it will provide some insight into your questions, but you might want to take a look at The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke - published in 1690 - I don't know if this is required study where you come from - but it was where I came from.

I'll quote a small part here:

"..... it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with

destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."

This is philosophy - not law. But it is timeless.

As far as tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims, you might want to see how the issue is framed from the point of view of devout Islamacists:

http://alhaqq.jeeran.com/thinking_muslim.html

But -I sense that you won't be interested - you will just dismiss it, deny its relevance - even though it has an entire section on "taking life" (i.e. - killing people).

I would expect that someone who was themself sexually abused as a child might might be very aggressive against pedophiles - but that's just a guess. 'Can't say I'd blame them. Rape - isn't that something that justifies a strong response?

In six years of walking Sukhumvit road daily, I've never seen any violence against a beggar. Or even a con-artist, for that matter. I have on several occasions seen brief violence against trans-gender pick-pockets - and from what I could see, it was generally not undeserved, and was possibly even necessary to avoid being robbed. But it was always defensive - in response to an opening initiative (unwanted contact) by the pick-pocket.

Another comment: there are some people on this board who do not seem to "get the picture" unless an issue is exaggerated to an extreme - which is why you manufactured the exaggerated "mob" from a tiny handful of individuals - because it is often easier to illustrate a point by creating strong "imagery" - by establishing a make-believe scenario.

And - in the conduct of rational debate, an accepted way to DISPROVE an argument is to emplo a techniqe known as "reductio ad absurdum" - basically: shredding an opposing point of argument that is supposedly always true - by carrying it to an extreme case.

Frankly, a lot of people who populate the board are mentally lazy, and you have to paint things in bright colors to keep them interested and awake.

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

[suegha]

If you look at his history you can see why I made that comment.

I appreciate your view (as it's something we are all guilty of), however, we should try to judge each thread on it's own merits, and show respect for differing views.

Thanks for the reply.

[chippie]

Excelent post Indo-siam, and far more articulate than I could have expressed.

[phibunmike]

Indo-siam, I am glad you posted because I know your views run counter to my own - that makes for an interesting debate. I do feel your post is more about the pros and cons of what I have dubbed "mob-rule" (though I agree it is not a very precise term, and I simply couldn't think of a better one) rather than how typical TV members' opinions on this subject are as a cross section of the general population, but that is ok, it still makes interesting posting.

As your post is quite long, I will interject my responses within it:

I'm not sure what "mob" you are referring to - is that a mob of three persons - divided across a handful of incidents? Five persons? Maybe eight persons? A mob? Are you perhaps WILDLY EXAGGERATING? (I write this to make a point that will be developed later)

I use the term "mob-rule" to refer to an immediate judgement and execution of sentence by a group of people (even a small group), as opposed to arrest, trial in a court of law, judgement and sentencing. I am sure there is a better term than "mob-rule" for this - please offer one.

At any rate, I don't know if it will provide some insight into your questions, but you might want to take a look at The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke - published in 1690 - I don't know if this is required study where you come from - but it was where I came from.

I'll quote a small part here:

"..... it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with

destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."

This is philosophy - not law. But it is timeless.

I haven't seen this before (I studied maths). I disagree with it, as do the legal systems of most democracies. And I am glad that they do. I think it is wrong to kill someone for theft when there is no threat against any individual. By quoting it, I assume you agree with it. So we have different opinions on that.

As far as tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims, you might want to see how the issue is framed from the point of view of devout Islamacists:

http://alhaqq.jeeran.com/thinking_muslim.html

But -I sense that you won't be interested - you will just dismiss it, deny its relevance - even though it has an entire section on "taking life" (i.e. - killing people).

I am not sure why you think I wouldn't be interested, it is very insightful. I have not read this particular text before but I have read a similar piece published by a muslim cleric - I am afraid I can't remember names or references. I hadn't mentioned the muslim issue, but it is relevant as it also draws highly charged emotional responses. You don't mention why you refer to it, but my guess is that you take from it that a violent reaction (or even pre=emptive action) against a muslim is justified because he/she will already consider you an enemy and not innocent, and therefore a justifiable target; therefore you are acting to defend yourself. But if you already accept Locke, you don't need a threat against you, just a perceived potential threat.

I would expect that someone who was themself sexually abused as a child might might be very aggressive against pedophiles - but that's just a guess. 'Can't say I'd blame them. Rape - isn't that something that justifies a strong response?

I can quite undertand being angry when someone is abused or raped - it affects me the same as anyone else. But even if I was in a scenario where I was directly involved, and killed the perpetrator after the event, I don't think that would be the right thing for me to do, and from the broader perspective I think it better for society if someone stopped me and arrested the perpetrator instead.

If a poster had recently been involved in such a case, I could well understand him/her saying something like "cut his balls off and shove them down his throat" - but I don't think that would be his/her reasoned response in most situations.

In six years of walking Sukhumvit road daily, I've never seen any violence against a beggar. Or even a con-artist, for that matter. I have on several occasions seen brief violence against trans-gender pick-pockets - and from what I could see, it was generally not undeserved, and was possibly even necessary to avoid being robbed. But it was always defensive - in response to an opening initiative (unwanted contact) by the pick-pocket.

Never seeing violence is irrelevent, I think. My post was about the written responses in this forum. Also, I have no objection to self defence.

Another comment: there are some people on this board who do not seem to "get the picture" unless an issue is exaggerated to an extreme - which is why you manufactured the exaggerated "mob" from a tiny handful of individuals - because it is often easier to illustrate a point by creating strong "imagery" - by establishing a make-believe scenario.

And - in the conduct of rational debate, an accepted way to DISPROVE an argument is to emplo a techniqe known as "reductio ad absurdum" - basically: shredding an opposing point of argument that is supposedly always true - by carrying it to an extreme case.

Frankly, a lot of people who populate the board are mentally lazy, and you have to paint things in bright colors to keep them interested and awake.

I hope now that I explained what I meant by "mob-rule" you can see that I didn't exaggerate, nor use reductio ad absurdum. In fact, although I did let my lack of impartiality on the matter show, I wasn't arguing the pros and cons of violent reation at all, as the last paragraph of my post was intended to make clear.

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

Cheers,

Mike

[Prakanong2005]

I really do not think there is any correlation (or causal factor) between people taking part in the nightlife "Scene" or whatever and the propensity to shout for mob rule and lynchings.

Advocating lynchings and other types of unlawful punishment outside of the law shows a rather low level of political sophistication or respect for civil society.

I may be completely wrong here but from what I can tell of board memebers nationalities there seems to be no bias and if any it is Brits (of which I am one) who advocate these unlawful acts.

The rule of law in a society is one indicator that we are human and have morals/value judgements. The tyranny of the majority can sometimes be a bad thing and in a liberal democracy it protects the human rights of individuals.

By all means prosecute people who commit acts against others and societies and individuals to the fullest extent but to advocate mob law says a lot about the individual concerned.

I am not a pacifist by any measure and do beleive it is necessary for states to go to war and to protect its citizens for the likes of terrorists by as much force as is required.

I will admit to being against capital punishment and it is one of my measures of a society whether it has it or not. It is no deterrent and the only argument that can be made for it is economic (but even that might be debateable in the USA with appeals lasting 10+ years) and the fact that particular person will not do it again in open society (he could be in for life meaning life though)

Maybe they are men of action behind a keyboard only - would they lead the mob, stand back and egg the mob on or slip into the shadows?

Edited March 24, 2006 by Prakanong2005

[phibunmike]

I really do not think there is any correlation (or causal factor) between people taking part in the nightlife "Scene" or whatever and the propensity to shout for mob rule and lynchings.

Advocating lynchings and other types of unlawful punishment outside of the law shows a rather low level of political sophistication or respect for civil society.

I may be completely wrong here but from what I can tell of board memebers nationalities there seems to be no bias and if any it is Brits (of which I am one) who advocate these unlawful acts.

The rule of law in a society is one indicator that we are human and have morals/value judgements. The tyranny of the majority can sometimes be a bad thing and in a liberal democracy it protects the human rights of individuals.

By all means prosecute people who commit acts against others and societies and individuals to the fullest extent but to advocate mob law says a lot about the individual concerned.

Maybe they are men of action behind a keyboard only - would they lead the mob, stand back and egg the mob on or slip into the shadows?

I agree with you - but what would be your response to my original question ? How typical are the posters of the general population ?

[Prakanong2005]

Typical of the general population - hmmm

Most expats or potential expat or wannabee expats are more right wing than the general population (at least UK ones but I have seen no evidence to suggest other nationalities are any different)

A lot of them are guys who have got up off their <deleted> and done something where others sit idly by - that is a good thing but economic freedom does not have to go hand in hand with the freedom to act outside the rule of law in a civil society. I bet a lot of them advocate rule of law in the economic or business realm including contract law etc but then advocate unlawful acts against humans

Advocates of capital punishment (or its unlawful ugly sister lynching) tend to be right wing. Having said that though if you asked the majority og working class Labour Party supporters in the UK (are there any) they would advocate capital punishment for certain classes of murderers in different proportions ie very highy for child killers down to much less for domestic killers.

That is why we do not elect delegates but representatives to apply higher values and do not allow the tyranny of the majority.

[phibunmike]

I am not sure why you think I wouldn't be interested, it is very insightful. I have not read this particular text before but I have read a similar piece published by a muslim cleric - I am afraid I can't remember names or references. I hadn't mentioned the muslim issue, but it is relevant as it also draws highly charged emotional responses. You don't mention why you refer to it, but my guess is that you take from it that a violent reaction (or even pre=emptive action) against a muslim is justified because he/she will already consider you an enemy and not innocent, and therefore a justifiable target; therefore you are acting to defend yourself. But if you already accept Locke, you don't need a threat against you, just a perceived potential threat.

I would like to correct a couple of things in my earlier post, in the quoted paragraph:

1. I said muslim when I should have said Islamist;

2. When I refer to "you", I am making the assumption that you are not a Muslim.

[englishoak]

Mob rule often happens when you offend those sensibilities that are held in reverence.........It is human nature to react with violence if this line is crossed.

It is prevalent throughout the world. Some places more than others. It is more likely to happen with a less educated crowd who are only able to express their anger through instant action/violence,but it is by no means confined to this section of society........

[cdnvic]

d) People express themselves differently when on TV - perhaps taking advantage of the anonymity of the medium.

This is nothing to do with who Thailand attracts, its been like that for as long as the internet has existed. Talk radio is much the same. Alot of times people just vent, and thats part of why the forum exists. There's plenty of reasoned discussioned to be found, you just have to apply some mental filters.

cv

[lampard10]

I would think that the people who do write these things are divided into three groups:

1) People that would actually go out and do these things..............2%

2) People who think that if they write about chopping sex offenders privates, or smacking beggars, they are going to be seen as an "Alright guy' by the rest of the Forum.......................49%

3) People who have no intention of doing these things, but the only place they can be brave is on the Forum where they can remain anonymous or where nobody knows them............49%

[Indo-Siam]

OK, a few other comments (and - I have been citing thoughts that cover possibilities that may apply to different people who express extreme views - not a coherrent argument where all points reinforce one another - i.e. no one poster may be aligned with all the possibilties).

First "mob rule" - that sounds like a general description of democracy - as opposed to rule by an elite few - or a single person. You seem to want to replace "mob rule" by "rule by you". Or - you want to have a government that was elected by that same "mob" remain in control. "Vigilante justice" is probably the correct term.

Justice - I think that may be a key. Probably all posters on this boardw ant to have a feeling tht they are living in (or talking about) a system where 'justice" is maintained. In all the incidents you mentioned, there are five general parties involved:

1) The present/past victims

2) Future victims (if perpetrtor is not decisively removed from picture)

2) The predators/perpetrators

3) The state

4) The vigilantes

Here is how I consistently see you and people similar to you expressing your priority of support/empathy:

1) The predators/perpetrators

2) The state

3) The present/past victims

4) The future vicitms

5) The vigilantes

Here is how "the mob" (as you describe it) may view the priority of interests:

1) The future victims

2) The present/past victims

3) The state

4) The vigilantes

5) The predator/perpetrator

I think the"mob" you speak of is people who have lost faith in the effectiveness of the state, and - in that situation - they prefer to err on the side of "terminating with extreme prejudice" the predators. Your position appears to be that you are willing to let the state - however clumsily - handle the situation - and if it can't, you prefer to err on the side of letting the predators walk.

Well, you will be happy to know that - in general - your position is in fact the defacto status quo in most all western countries - including Thailand.

I think I could probably write up a new post that mimicked your OP almost word for word - but in place of your abhoreance against "mob rule" I could substitute "callousness for past and future victims" - and the vilified "mob" would cheer - because to them, your position hints strongly that you care more about "destroyers of shrines", false con-artist beggars, and pedophiles than you do about the people they wronged. In fact, your group tends to NEVER mention the possibility of future victims - and just gives a token ("sorry this happrned, but...") backhander to the present/past victims.

I do not see anything wrong with people who are frustrated with the stutus quo standing up to be vocally advocating a tougher poistion - technically, this is known as "advocacy" - advocacy of a change in the status quo. I do not see it as evil, or negative - it is how public policy is created - by tossing around competing ideas.

Where you have a strong right to be outraged is when someome actually conspires to break the law by proposing in advance the actual commission of a vigilante crime - i.e. someone coming onto this board with a proposed plan " Hey, all you other vigilantes - meet we at the corner of Wirelesss Road and Ploenchit Road at 8:00 pm Tuesday tonight - we will go lynch that faggot beggar who hangs out in the Plaza Athenee parking lot." This is illegal conspiracy and incitement to commit a crime - an extra-judicial assault. But - I have never seen such talk on this board.

Until and unless that happens, you are talking about the competition of ideas about how things should be run. Whay would this bother you? Do you want to live in a bland world where nothing ever changes, and there is no adaptation to a changing social envorinment ? Are you afraid of competing ideas?

Vigorous debate should not be stifled - just because it includes discussion of alternate solutions that you personally find abhorrent.

Another thought: there are people who post on this board who appear to put primary focus on the dialogue that they are having with other posters in a thread. That isNEVER how I operate - because I realize hat for every active poster who enters comments, there are 10 or 100 other readers who read, think, and then move on - without posting. When I write about "political" topics (or - even about business topics), I generally write with the larger population of casual readers in mind. Most people who actually write already have their positions locked in stone - I hardly ever see anyone change their position in writing. The battle is for the "hearts and minds" of the silent majority. Neither you nor I know what that silent majority thinks. I suspect that your OP in this thread was intended to maybe draw out some of that silent majority - to see which "camp" they were in.

A sense of justice. That is probably the key that can unlock the secrets of this topic. We live in an imperfect world, with imperfect justice. So - when there is a mistake - as is inevitable - on which side of the issue does the error fall - on being too harsh on perpetrators, or on being too easy on perpetrators? There are vocal advocates for both sides - which seems to be a good situation to me. It also seems to me that out there in the real world, current systems in free countries tend to err on the side of the perpetrator - at least 80-90% of the time. Vigilate justice is what develops when this status quo becomes intolerable.

I do not believe that my personal views should be implemented as social policy. But I feel that I - and people who share similar views - should have a voice in the debate - to keep the outcome closer to a balanced center. My perception is that this board (at least with respect to the vocal participants) is slightly dominated by Europeans, and heavily skewed toward a liberal viewpoint. In aggregate, it is in fact probably very well centered around a happy center with which you should feel quite cozy. This board is not dominated by conservatives.

Final thoughts: I wonder how many people on this board spend any significant time thinking about what the world will be like ten years from now, or 20 years from now? 20 years ago - 1986 - was not all that very much different than 2006, in many western countries. Geopolitically, the main change since then seems (to me) to have been the collapse of the Communist Eastern Bloc.

Well, I think the world is in for an unprecedented geopolitical change over the next 20 years - and it is going to plunge the world into having to make some brutal choices - on a broad scale. Two natural threats will loom - one involving climate change, one involving medical pandemics - but the main threat will come fom human social politics. There is one system that is going to rise up and try to crush all other systems - and the demographics favor that system. All the unfortunate incidents that concern you so much are going to look like just insignificant warm up exercises, compared to the tough, brutal, massive social behavior shifts that are to come - one way or the other. Along the way, there are going to be some horriffic social policy debates - particularly as panic sets in, once the power balance begins to accellerate away from the status quo.

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

Edited March 25, 2006 by Indo-Siam

[robitusson]

There are often posts which promote what might be called the "lynch mob" or "witch hunt" system of 'justice' (you can probably already tell which side of this I am approaching the subject from).

A few recent examples include celebration of the beating-to-death of man by a mob at the Erawan Shrine, promoting violence against a beggar in Bangkok because he is caucasian, and suggesting a variety of non-standard surgical procedures to be imposed upon someone accused (but not convicted) of having sex with a minor.

The number of posters who apparently support bypassing the law and applying these measures absolutely shocks and surprises me; which leads to me asking myself a question, and thence to asking this forum that same question:

In my experience elsewhere (outside the forum - yes, there is another world out there ) I have not previously encountered this same level of support for "mob-rule", nor anywhere near it. So, I think one of the following must be true, and I am curious to ask fellow TVers which they think apply (or to add alternatives if I have missed them).

a) I have previously misjudged the opinions of most people I have met and talked to;

b ) TV members have a much higher percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

c) The people I have met elsewhere have a much lower percentage of "mob-rule" advocats than the population as a whole;

d) People express themselves differently when on TV - perhaps taking advantage of the anonymity of the medium.

(d) above could then be split into further options: (i) they are more honest on TV; (ii) they are less honest on TV; or (iii) they don't really think that way, they are just venting anger or frustration.

You're right. I think a lot of what people say is hot air. I doubt there are people on this forum who would really have the conviction to do what they threaten. People like to say these often ridiculous things, about killing this person or that person, do it to distance themselves from whatever the particular person is doing, like the Farang beggar for example. I don't think that TV has a higher or lower level of this than the general public. This tabloid-newspaper mentality is everywhere unfortunately and, as you said, comes out with the added feature of anonymity.

It's ignorance pure and simple. Worrying considering there are a lot of educators on TV.

[mrbojangles]

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

A most excellent post Indo-Siam