| Source (credibility) effect 07:15 - Jun 29 with 9927 views | stainrods_elbow |
Am writing an article on this topic right now, with specific reference to social media platforms, and specifically football message boards.
The phenomenon refers to how people’s reactions, judgments, or acceptance of information vary depending on who delivers the message rather than just what is said. Factors include the speaker’s perceived authority, trustworthiness, likability, social status, or group membership.
Sometimes it’s also discussed in terms of:
(i) Message source bias
(ii) In-group/out-group effects (including online scapegoating)
(iii) Halo effect (where a person’s overall impression influences judgment of specific statements).
It's something I've noticed time and again on LfW, though i get the feeling that the perpetrators are totally unaware of it. I'm also interested in how it works the other way to, i.e. those individuals who consider themselves more qualified/professionalised/having higher 'status' etc. operate accordingly.
Would appreciate any thoughts, on or off board, from those who have an interest in the topic and/or expertise etc. [Post edited 29 Jun 7:19]
|  |
| |  |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:49 - Jul 3 with 2138 views | Sonic_Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:42 - Jul 3 by stainrods_elbow |
It depends on all the kinds of 'dangerous' in the world - see my remarks on the dangers of monolithic thinking (i.e that there's only one kind). Barton could be a bit dangerous in one way, and people who want to string him up dangerous in another.
Power, and its apparent abuses, are also always part of a dynamic; power isn't something any one person 'has'. Foucault is one writer who's analysed this for people who are interested in philosophy. Interestingly, Barton's wife (who initally retracted her allegations) is staying with/standing by him. In court, the magistrate 'said a mitigating factor was that the couple remained in a "happy relationship" with a young child, adding: "That is not something I want to interfere with."'
I don't know what happened, and how, just like everyone else, so I'll reserve judgment (which also tends to make room for more interesting conversation, I find).
PS I presume Barton isn't on your interview list anytime soon, Northern, but I'd be fascinated to see how you'd approach him as an investigative journalist. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:46]
|
Your misrepresentation of Foucault to muddy the waters over Barton's crime is a bit much. Foucault absolutely would acknowledge that Barton's abuse of his wife was an abuse of power, just that that power is enacted rather than is possessed and exists as a relation rather than a thing.
Or, as a PP succinctly put it, he'd think Barton was a c*nt. |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 19:49 - Jul 3 with 2056 views | FDC |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:49 - Jul 3 by Sonic_Hoop |
Your misrepresentation of Foucault to muddy the waters over Barton's crime is a bit much. Foucault absolutely would acknowledge that Barton's abuse of his wife was an abuse of power, just that that power is enacted rather than is possessed and exists as a relation rather than a thing.
Or, as a PP succinctly put it, he'd think Barton was a c*nt. |
And, whilst no Foucault scholar (unlike Stainrod's_Towering_Intellect im sure), I'm pretty sure that given his analysis of power as relational and constituted through discourse, he absolutely would not repeatedly suggest that a woman staying with her husband is evidence that no abuse has taken place ffs |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 20:21 - Jul 3 with 1987 views | kensalriser |
Barton is simply a thug whose first recourse to anything that displeases him is violence.
If he didn't enjoy the considerable privileges of wealth and fame he would undoubtedly have served at least one stretch in prison.
And no one is calling for him to be 'strung up'. |  |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:06 - Jul 3 with 1899 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:49 - Jul 3 by Sonic_Hoop |
Your misrepresentation of Foucault to muddy the waters over Barton's crime is a bit much. Foucault absolutely would acknowledge that Barton's abuse of his wife was an abuse of power, just that that power is enacted rather than is possessed and exists as a relation rather than a thing.
Or, as a PP succinctly put it, he'd think Barton was a c*nt. |
Foucault is, or rather was, a philosopher, not a moralist, and I'm not misrepresenting anything. In what you say in the rest of your paragraph, you're clearly agreeing with the point I was making in any event (and that he argues for). As I've acknoweldged, Barton is clearly massively flawed, but to isolate him as if he were the sole repository of evil in this interaction with his wife and family is missing the point. They're a (pathological sounding) network, and he's one player only. [Post edited 3 Jul 22:07]
| |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:07 - Jul 3 with 1917 views | 222gers |
I think a lot of society's ills could be eradicated if we adopted Friedenbascher's theory of relative behaviour patterns to external stimuli. |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:10 - Jul 3 with 1892 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 20:21 - Jul 3 by kensalriser |
Barton is simply a thug whose first recourse to anything that displeases him is violence.
If he didn't enjoy the considerable privileges of wealth and fame he would undoubtedly have served at least one stretch in prison.
And no one is calling for him to be 'strung up'. |
He's already been to prison, or did you miss that memo? | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:35 - Jul 3 with 1876 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
 |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 23:14 - Jul 3 with 1806 views | BristolR |
 |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Source (credibility) effect on 00:05 - Jul 4 with 1767 views | Sonic_Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:06 - Jul 3 by stainrods_elbow |
Foucault is, or rather was, a philosopher, not a moralist, and I'm not misrepresenting anything. In what you say in the rest of your paragraph, you're clearly agreeing with the point I was making in any event (and that he argues for). As I've acknoweldged, Barton is clearly massively flawed, but to isolate him as if he were the sole repository of evil in this interaction with his wife and family is missing the point. They're a (pathological sounding) network, and he's one player only. [Post edited 3 Jul 22:07]
|
Yes you are. Your implication was that Barton couldn't be judged as a wrong un because Foucault rejected Kant's concept of morals and believed power didn't reside with individuals. What's clear from reading Foucault is that he believed power doesn't "soley" reside with individuals.
In fact, in his later work he tackled the question of ethics in terms of connections between self-care, the governance of others, and parrhesia. By 1983 he was quoted as agreeing with a journalist who said we need to “assert each person’s responsibility for their own choices” and to move towards greater “accountability” for those actions. (Admittedly this was in relation to his views on the Welfare State)
Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread, the original premise was an interesting one. | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 00:36 - Jul 4 with 1718 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 00:05 - Jul 4 by Sonic_Hoop |
Yes you are. Your implication was that Barton couldn't be judged as a wrong un because Foucault rejected Kant's concept of morals and believed power didn't reside with individuals. What's clear from reading Foucault is that he believed power doesn't "soley" reside with individuals.
In fact, in his later work he tackled the question of ethics in terms of connections between self-care, the governance of others, and parrhesia. By 1983 he was quoted as agreeing with a journalist who said we need to “assert each person’s responsibility for their own choices” and to move towards greater “accountability” for those actions. (Admittedly this was in relation to his views on the Welfare State)
Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread, the original premise was an interesting one. |
Thanks for that, and I appreciate the (interesting) feedback from one who clearly knows their stuff. Sorry if I bored one or two others.
As I tried to put across, I really just want to demonstrate how, for every violator, there's often collusion, protection, and co-dependency, and I see the thrust of F's critique of power as harmonising with that systemic vision - as well a necessary counterweight to those here who just want to isolate people like Barton as unilaterally and self-enclosedly corrupt. Far too many, in my experience, project their own power dynamics onto others to safeguard their view of themselves as the 'nice guys'. Most of us are a mixture of humane and mean. Some use fists; others use words.
As for Joey, I wouldn't necessarily have a drink with him, but I would interview him. If he were a mere simpleton or complete c*ck, I imagine he wouldn't have been invited by the Oxford Union to debate football, philosophy and social media (and be described by students after as 'inpsirational'), do community work at Pendleside Hospice while at Burnley, or check himself into Sporting Chance (well, at least he tried). [Post edited 4 Jul 1:54]
| |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 10:24 - Jul 4 with 1590 views | TheChef |
I wish Stainrod would put some clothes on. |  |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 14:18 - Jul 4 with 1461 views | Rsole |
What’s ya rightin, Baz ?
I reeds a bits but nots 2 much, mush. |  |
| Those possessed by devils, try and keep them under control a bit, can't you ?
|
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 15:58 - Jul 4 with 1382 views | hubble |
I'm following this thread with mild interest, because right now, there's Foucault else to do. |  |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:04 - Jul 5 with 1237 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:59 - Jul 3 by KensalT |
Juries decide questions of fact.
Questions of law and all matters relating to mitigation, good character etc are considered by the judge. Not the jury.
And then there's the court of public opinion. And I think the public generally takes a dim view of repeat offenders, particularly ones who direct their violence at women, kids, or the odd pedestrian
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34072706/joey-barton-vile-thug/ |
For the record, you're making a technical distinction the Plymouth Brethren who are exempted don't recognise. Any participation in legal machinery is seen as complicity with a judgmental, worldly (fallen) order.
As to the 'court of public opinion', I should have thought its pernicious outgrowths into the horrorshows of social media have long since declared it a madhouse. | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:43 - Jul 5 with 1224 views | KensalT |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:04 - Jul 5 by stainrods_elbow |
For the record, you're making a technical distinction the Plymouth Brethren who are exempted don't recognise. Any participation in legal machinery is seen as complicity with a judgmental, worldly (fallen) order.
As to the 'court of public opinion', I should have thought its pernicious outgrowths into the horrorshows of social media have long since declared it a madhouse. |
When it comes to religious fundamentalism I'm with Billy Connolly who said "never trust a man who has only read one book!"
And before you get defensive I'm not aiming that at you personally.
Just out of curiosity how does a movement that considers itself above man-made laws defend itself when former members give evidence in court that the movement is guilty of genocide and slavery?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-02/exclusive-brethren-guilty-of-genocide-sla |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:39 - Jul 5 with 1176 views | E15Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 13:20 - Jul 4 by stainrods_elbow |
Yes, I'm laughing too - albeit grimly. A textbook depiction of inverted snobbery! You should take up a career as a resentful cartoonist, Bazza - I'm sure you'd make a mint! [Post edited 4 Jul 13:21]
|
Why are you assuming Bazza's "resentful"?
I personally read it as a very amusing take on your unrelenting pomposity - a feature of yours of which you seem to be completely unaware (which makes you a prime and completely fair target for some very well constructed humour).
I would suggest you take yourself slighly less seriously before you do yourself some permanent damage.
Alternatively, you could continue as you are and let us all enjoy continuing to take the p*ss out of you (which, to be fair, is quite entertaining). | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 01:42 - Jul 6 with 1068 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:43 - Jul 5 by KensalT |
When it comes to religious fundamentalism I'm with Billy Connolly who said "never trust a man who has only read one book!"
And before you get defensive I'm not aiming that at you personally.
Just out of curiosity how does a movement that considers itself above man-made laws defend itself when former members give evidence in court that the movement is guilty of genocide and slavery?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-02/exclusive-brethren-guilty-of-genocide-sla |
Interesting link - I don't know about that case. I suppose every organisation, just like every individual, has its contradictions.
I agree with you, in principle, about fundamentalism's refusal of criticality and complexity, which I think may have been the original thrust of my thread. | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 01:44 - Jul 6 with 1067 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:39 - Jul 5 by E15Hoop |
Why are you assuming Bazza's "resentful"?
I personally read it as a very amusing take on your unrelenting pomposity - a feature of yours of which you seem to be completely unaware (which makes you a prime and completely fair target for some very well constructed humour).
I would suggest you take yourself slighly less seriously before you do yourself some permanent damage.
Alternatively, you could continue as you are and let us all enjoy continuing to take the p*ss out of you (which, to be fair, is quite entertaining). |
'Let us all' - again, a person who conflates their own individuality with the view of some ghostly 'all'. Try reeling your neck in yourself, have the balls just to speak for yourself, and you'd be less of a tedious hypocrite.
As for inviting piss-taking, the artists I tend to admire are all high tightrope-walkers, who teeter between passion, brilliance, and bathos (Lynch, Cronenberg, Cooper etc. etc.). Some people here respond to the points I raise here seriously; some prefer satire and name-calling. When I arouse the excitement of the latter, I tend to think I'm on the right track. As for pomposity, try looking around. [Post edited 6 Jul 1:48]
| |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 08:57 - Jul 6 with 970 views | E15Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 01:44 - Jul 6 by stainrods_elbow |
'Let us all' - again, a person who conflates their own individuality with the view of some ghostly 'all'. Try reeling your neck in yourself, have the balls just to speak for yourself, and you'd be less of a tedious hypocrite.
As for inviting piss-taking, the artists I tend to admire are all high tightrope-walkers, who teeter between passion, brilliance, and bathos (Lynch, Cronenberg, Cooper etc. etc.). Some people here respond to the points I raise here seriously; some prefer satire and name-calling. When I arouse the excitement of the latter, I tend to think I'm on the right track. As for pomposity, try looking around. [Post edited 6 Jul 1:48]
|
Bazza's post has 11 likes - clearly basic maths is not your strongpoint.
However, you're evidently very happy in your own little self-important bubble, and I shall continue to be happy in finding ways to burst it when the opportunity arises. | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 09:28 - Jul 6 with 923 views | E15Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 08:57 - Jul 6 by E15Hoop |
Bazza's post has 11 likes - clearly basic maths is not your strongpoint.
However, you're evidently very happy in your own little self-important bubble, and I shall continue to be happy in finding ways to burst it when the opportunity arises. |
..And as for calling me a "hypocrite", thanks for giving me the biggest laugh out loud moment of my weekend so far!
You have the audacity to throw that word at me, whilst at the same time extolling the supposed virtues of the Plymouth Brethren, who wilfully and arrogantly refuse to acknowledge their moral and legal responsibility of accepting a place on a jury.
If everyone did that, we would have no objective legal framework, leading to anarchy followed fairly swiftly by tyranny as the government of the day panics and overreacts accordingly.
Even funnier than that, the supposed reason why you are in thrall to the Brethren is because they allegedly don't pass judgement on others (which is in itself absolute bollox, but we'll let that be for the moment). You, however, have absolutely no issue whatsoever in passing judgement on anyone on this forum who dares to call you out.
Not sure its me who's the actual hypocrite in this scenario, is it... | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 18:07 - Jul 6 with 800 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:02 - Jul 3 by Northernr |
I would rather suck a fart out of John Prescott's corpse. |
You have a thing about John Prescott, I've noticed - alive or dead! | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 19:51 - Jul 6 with 746 views | Rsole |
Is this thread still going ?
I know it’s relatively quiet at this time of year but still….
Maybe it’ll overtake the Kelman thread before the season starts. No one’s that interested in him since he came back after all :-).
URs ! | |
| Those possessed by devils, try and keep them under control a bit, can't you ?
|
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 01:18 - Jul 7 with 650 views | DannyPaddox |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:02 - Jul 3 by Northernr |
I would rather suck a fart out of John Prescott's corpse. |
I love the way this vanity thread has turned into a behind closed doors pre-season friendly. Fantastic form Clive which bodes well for the 25/26 match reports.
QPR 1 Stevenage’s Elbow 0.
Assist from our old favourite Mindless McGroupthink. |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 03:13 - Jul 7 with 619 views | numptydumpty |
My take on this thread is Stainrod s Elbow has multiple accounts set up on here and to encourage debate he often uses rarely used accounts to reply to his own questions but he slightly disagrees with them and then compares all other replies as deviant or lacking in empathy.
My conclusion is it's a very strange way to operate. It's definitely true though. It's so obvious.
However, once either himself or any of his alternative accounts and his debates have caused others to bite, he then throws out all manner of insults to all and sundry and acts as the only one on here, along with his other rarely used aliases, that are decent human beings.
The conclusion is thus.
If you have not been insulted by Stainrods anatomy then you cannot consider yourself to be a fully fledged member of the forum.
However, my own personal take on all this is that every single comment Stainrod has put on here, I am astounded by the level of intellect and the fair mindedness that the man possesses.
I so wish I was that cool but unfortunately I confess to being a saddo !!
I very much look forward to being educated by Barton / Stainrod and A N Other !!
My mate Freud is getting worried...
I personally bow to my master !!!!!!!! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
