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.
What you are talking about is a normal internet conversation.
If you don't want everyone showing up to call you dumb then don't say stupid things lol
There's a clear difference between people being mean to someone who didn't know better vs someone who is full of shit
It's not that easy. People often LOOK for malice and give people zero grace, it's seen as an easy opportunity to white knight and get people to pile on.
It's the worst part of online conversation, because it only takes one asshole to derail everything.
I’m here to get away from a normal internet conversation but with size it seems that it is inevitable.
I mean yeah, more users means more homogeneity
Yeah like somebody throwing around the term “terf” completely out of context to protect the reputations of men instead of being concerned about femicide and radicalization of men. Like what you did.
You dropping misandrist dogwhistles is what makes me think you're a terf.
There's a difference here. I got it for calling this quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." Copypasta.
Which it is. It's true, but It's also tired and old, and people just post that with nothing else to add. Just that. It's not even saying the quote is wrong or anything. Just that copypasta is annoying and lazy. Downvote and dog-piled for that opinion? Who would defend copypasta? Yet as of my last check, at least 92 people like just seeing that quote randomly posted over and over and over.
92 people thought you pointing it out as copypasta was something worth downvoting. Maybe it was the way you said it, or that pointing it out as copypasta was a net negative for the thread if you didn't add why it being copypasta was relevant.