Dog-piling is when someone expresses an opinion and people swarm in the comments telling the OC how wrong they are and how right they are. Typically the person getting dogpiled is downvoted into oblivion in the process. Note that I'm not talking about anything controversial in their opinion or the comment being trolling in any way; just any general disagreement with the groupthink.
Brief example:
User 1: There are lots of factors at play here, not just money. There's X, Y, Z, and those are all independent from money.
|____> User 2: No, it's money. It's always money
|______> User 4: Right? How can anyone think it's anything *but* money? Some people!
|____> User 3: Yes, well, X, Y, and Z wouldn't be a problem if not for capitalism, so it's definitely money, and you're wrong.
|____> User 5: It all boils down to money; always does.
|____> User 6: Of course it's money. Only a capitalist bootlicker would think otherwise.
|____> User 7: Go back to Reddit, troll.
|____> User 8: You're so close, but it's money.
...
|____> User 999: (Same as the last 998 comments; contributes nothing except attacking the opinion for being different)
None of that adds anything to the discussion; they're not engaging on the subject, just attacking the opinion because it differs.
That behavior does not seem healthy to me and seems like it's almost designed to discourage anyone from expressing any opinion that's not part of the established group think. Again, I am not talking about trolls here, just any kind of differing opinions.
Should that kind of behavior be discouraged? If so, as a mod, what would be the best way to address it? After the 2nd or 3rd dogpile comment, start removing subsequent ones that are just piling on?
It's definitely a people problem, so I'm curious what would be a gentle but firm way to deal with it.
I think the thing it ‘adds’ is some kind of indication of social consensus. I agree it’s harmful to thoughtfulness and to people’s development of individual understanding rather than just parroting (see all of twitter). I do think the semi-anonymous forum style prevents a bit of the soap boxing compared to social media with your name on it, but it’s still clearly present here.
In terms of solutions I don’t have a lot of concrete ideas. I think this phenomenon stems from a broader social shift towards moral absolutism and outsourcing knowledge to experts (where who is trusted as an expert varies dramatically) rather than striving to understand things yourself.
Opinions that go against the grain require patience and suspension of disbelief with your conversation partner—something usually lacking in online discussion. A presumption of good faith (even where no good faith was intended) would go a long way.
Anecdotally in a formal learning setting when you take a student’s ideas seriously (even if they’re not very mature ideas) they learn to think through things better and consider them more deeply than when you just correct them with the most up to date spiel on the matter.