I enjoyed the read, that’s basically it! Back to my place in the Peanut Gallery!

Thank you very much!   :D

Actually, you did a very good job of stretching out my brief summary.

Phew, that’s a relief!   Thank you.   :)

And while you may not like the term “sub-culture”, there is no denigration implied

I know, that was why I said it was a personal issue, and not an issue I had with you.   :)

In the US, it’s amusing to see this happen with Christian churches that have schismed – the break-away groups have much more abhorrence of the original church than they do of, say, completely different religions.

People are weird.

I don’t think this behaviour is weird at all, I think it makes perfect sense.   As far as I can tell, it fits perfectly with what we’ve been talking about.   One of the things I left out of my synopsis of your synopsis, is a reason why people tend to lash out at those closest to them (as opposed to, say, lashing out at people at random).

And the primary reason I think that people (all people, not just those members of non-mainstream diversities) lash out most at those closest to them, is comprised of the following elements:

1.   Conflict is not possible if there is no common basis over which to conflict.

2.   The closer one person is to another person, group, or diversity, the more commonalities there are, and therefore the larger the existing common basis over which conflict is possible.

3.   The more distant one person is from another person, group, or diversity, the smaller the common basis over which conflict is possible.

For example, siblings conflict with each other frequently and with enthusiasm;   those same siblings conflict entirely less frequently and less emotively with their peers;   the same siblings conflict even less frequently with strangers, and I don’t think that’s totally because they spend less time with strangers.

The religious schisms you mentioned fit perfectly into this scenario;   the churches most alike, which are closest to each other, have the largest number of common features over which conflict is possible.   The further distant they are regarding common features, the fewer reasons they have to actually conflict.

My experience is that people behave completely logically;   behaviour only appears illogical to an observer when all of the elements contributing to the logical decision-making are not known to the observer.   I think that the logic exists, whether or not it is known.

My experience is that a person might well not know the logic behind their own behaviour.   But I think that logic is there, regardless.

Since my experience has led me to conclude that people are not weird (at least in this way), and that they are in fact perfectly logical (whether they know it or not), my project is to gather information until the logic behind the behaviour becomes clear to me.

I’ve been working on a book about this.   This blog (including the comments) is helping me clarify my thinking on it.   :)

ps:   I disagree that the reason kvetch had trouble with my synopsis is because of difficulties with these concepts, whether they are counter-intuitive or not.   It might have been issues with my wording.   But as neither of us knows why he had so much trouble with it, our quest to find out continues.   :)

I’m surprised you haven’t run across the term “cultural backlash,” although perhaps because my educational background was in psych and sociology, I’m more likely to apply those perspectives when I look at certain situations.

And while you may not like the term “sub-culture”, there is no denigration implied; I’m trying to define a sub-set of a particular interest group. Keep in mind that this applies in very general terms, and across most socio/political and yes, even religious spectrums.

It’s possible that kvetch isn’t following because in many respects the concept is counter-intuitive; one would think that a splinter group would have many things in common with the parent group, and would therefore be on amiable terms. Unfortunately, as you’ve mentioned, the splinter groups tend to work overtime to create some kind of distance in order to differentiate themselves.

In the US, it’s amusing to see this happen with Christian churches that have schismed – the break-away groups have much more abhorrence of the original church than they do of, say, completely different religions.

People are weird.

Either that, or my other brain cell went on holiday and didn’t bother to tell me.

(they never write, they never call…)

If I understood you correctly, then I think I agree with you.   If you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I have never heard this called “backlash”, but this may simply be a culture/language/foreign-version-of-English thingy.   Let me try to rephrase in a way my remaining brain cell can manage, and then if you wouldn’t mind, you can confirm if I got what you intended, ok?

(I will pretend that you have given your consent to this, and will carry on)

First, I have personal issues with terms such as “sub-group” or “sub-culture”. Those terms feel kind of denigrating to me, and so I don’t like using them.   So I use terms such as “diversity” instead.

As far as I can work out, you’re essentially saying that

1.   Members of a less mainstream diversity tend to lash out most often and most strongly against those who are closest to their own diversity.

2.   The lasher-outers also attempt to distance themselves from those who are closest to their diversity, possibly in an effort to establish their “specialness”.

3.   One feature of being a human being, is that repeated exposure to a certain behaviour can often result in that behaviour being unconsciously emulated, such as learning to marginalise oneself after having felt repeatedly, habitually, and therefore familiarly marginalised by the larger population.

4.   The lasher-outers may have learnt to marginalise themselves from others, without differentiating between whom they choose to marginalise themselves from.   (I added 3 and 4 to your stuff to make the logic go all nice from 2 to 5, and to make places for some of the other puzzle pieces to fit)

5.   The lasher-outers tend to spend more time lashing out than they spend on simply doing their own thing.   (I have a feeling that the part about cultural reasons for “dominatrix” dress might be irrelevant in the more general synopsis)

6.   The lasher-outers tend to minimise, dismiss, denigrate and/or invalidate those who are closest to their diversity, who don’t fit into their own ideas of what’s good, right, proper, whatever;   possibly because this may reduce their feelings of being “special”, and possibly because they themselves have become familiar with minimisation, dismissal, denigration and/or invalidation.

7.   Feelings of their identity being threatened may also play a part in this.   (note the puzzle pieces I referred to earlier)

8.   The lasher-outers’ frustration and anger about being marginalised by the larger population can spawn a feeling of being entitled to compensation for their suffering.

9.   Instead of allowing for diversity within their own diversity, they may try to exact compensation for their suffering from people closest to their diversity, as if they were the ones who caused their suffering, and possibly because they present the most convenient targets.

10. Because the lasher-outers’ targets may have grown from similar experiences of marginalisation and so on as described above, their response to being targeted may be similar to the lasher-outers’ behaviour, and usually nobody comes out of that well.   (I added in those conclusions to your stuff as I understood it)

If my synopsis fits what you intended to say, then I might venture a speculation (even though I eschew the topics of religion and politics in my discussions) that the same synopsis more or less precisely fits the situation in my home country.

In other words, same problem, different symptoms.

If my synopsis doesn’t fit what you intended to say, then I will unfortunately need to ask you for further clarification, if you would be so kind?

Equally unfortunately, I tried to run all this by kvetch, and he was utterly unable to follow any of it (which is not usually a problem for him, I assure you).   So I don’t know whether either of us are making sense or not.   However, I feel quite clear on what I was trying to say, so I’m going to try posting it anyhow and see what happens.

I look forward to finding out.   :)

Often, this happens when the dissenters try to distance themselves (or their overt philosophical differences) from the principal sub-culture; some people who enjoy BDSM try to distance themselves from “professional” practitioners, even as others in the sub-culture embrace the professionals. Or some women – for whatever reason – reject the stereotyped “leather & thigh boot” dominatrix model; yet instead of simply doing their own thing, engage in tirades proclaiming the inherent “wrongness” of those models – completely ignoring the underlying cultural reasons for such dress.

I think that backlashers of any sub-culture fail to acknowledge the irony, let alone hypocrosityishness not out of a sense of logical inappropriateness, but simply out of misplaced frustration that engenders some sense of entitlement.

I’m going to suggest that some of the examples you’ve cited have been noticed, but the offender has done a rather effective job of steamrolling over the objections.

That’s true, I’d quite forgotten that, you’ve made an excellent point.

Steamrollering wasn’t something I considered as relevant to my premise, since I had been regarding it as simple reiterations of the transgressions.   But you’re right, the steamrollering was indeed in response to objections.

I don’t know if the steamrollering was effective in the sense of being convincing, but it clearly was effective in (mostly) silencing the public voices of objectors who may not have wanted to pursue the discussion in the face of such invalidative steamrollerage.   I hope I’m made of sterner stuff.

We’ll see.

If you read me writing about how I embarked on a new steamy torrid affair with fillings and just a   hint   of lemon juice, you’ll know a steamroller will have blini‘d me.

Ok, let me clarify:

The examples I referenced, and others like them, either

1. Are too much below most people’s radar for them to notice, or

2. Have apparently not registered as significant enough with the people who document such things, to result in the transgressions being noted and documented anywhere other than in comments submitted for publication to, and under the control of the transgressor, or

3. Have apparently registered as significant enough for some people to object, but who lacked the cojones to carry through and continue to assert their objections in the face of a steamrollering transgressor.

There, is that better?

I’m grateful for your suggestion thingy, thank you.   :)

ps:   You’re very welcome for the other thingy.   :)