> If rooting for "the home team" were the point, folks would be always
> rooting for it to the same degree. Attempts at ostracism and
> bullying have not been zero, but they have not been even remotely
> close to overwhelming pressures. The population who are most likely
> to be subject to pro-war bullying -- Arabs and Muslims in the USA --
> have not changed their opinions. Blacks remained steadfast in their
> opposition as well (unlike at the time of the first Gulf War):
> <http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030404.asp>.
> --
> Yoshie
I agree with Yoshie. You can't explain varying phenomena on the basis of invariant social mechanisms. You can say that there is always "herd behavior" (or, if you are feeling in a better mood and less contemptuous of the masses, "social control", "group processes", etc., but what explains the fact that the herds regroup and realign: patriotic, progressive, working-class, radical? Someone can come along and say that Feb. 15 was "herd behavior" as well, but why are there pro-war herds one day and anti-war herds another day? As for the idea that young men always want to do battle, even if I gave credit to this kind of XY sociobiology (although by allowing for "virtual violence" you incorporate just about any kind of political activity imaginable, including arguing on a list), why do some want to do battle with Iraqis while others want to do battle with the police?
"A man is not an ox"
--- title of a "Car 54, where are you?" episode
LP