Cliques on Joeuser?

on Jun 19, 2006

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?

47

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

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?

48

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

49

Charissa Kaschel

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

50

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

#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

51

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

52

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

53

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

#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.

54

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

55

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

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

56

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

#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

57

Trudygolightly

on Jun 19, 2006

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.

58

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2006

ok whip and trudy, enough!, at least here. I am going to Let the posts stand as is. but NO MORE!

59

Trudygolightly

on Jun 19, 2006

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

60

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2006

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.