Pogroms in North America

[Lady tehMa]

As per the free online dictionary

po·grom (p-grm, pgrm)
n.
An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews.
[Russian, outrage, havoc, from pogromit', to wreak havoc : po-, adverbial pref. (from po, next to; see apo- in Indo-European roots) + gromit', to outrage, wreak havoc (from grom, thunder).]

emphasis mine.

I don't know if it is the growth of the internet, and anonymity provided thereof, but I am seeing less and less responsible debate and discourse in the North American society as a whole (both in person and on the internet).

I am seeing it as "freedom of speech is free, as long as you believe what I believe". Any dissenting voices are met with swift and vicious attack. Many people call the attackers trolls, and dismiss them as few and far between. What troubles me is that people are engaging in Orwellian group-think, and refuse to question their beliefs. I question all the time, and I examine.

Some people refuse to believe that people are capable of critical thought, unless they reach the same conclusions they themselves hold. Think about that for a minute, I am sure you have run across it in your day to day life. Do you not find this the least bit horrifying? Little by little, the freedom to dissent is being chipped away.

The ability to examine and choose for yourself what you believe is being taken away. Peer pressure, group-think, mob mentality; call it what you will, it exists and is growing.

The example I will use, only came to my attention yesterday, and it horrifies me. Listen for yourself http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/09/05/coming-out-as-a-creationist/

So - how many of you were filled with righteous ire at the beginning of my post, then switched to "oh, well that is the way it should happen because I don't share her beliefs."? Honestly speaking here, I would like to know.

I submit that we need our freedom to believe, and to search for our own answers regardless of what others believe. Be it string theory vs. quantum theory, be it evolution vs. intelligent design, be it any thing at all; what gives anyone the right to dictate what someone should believe? What gives them the right to strip someone of their livelihood for it?

[Homeownertoo]

I suspect you are seeing this mainly on the Internet, but how about the more mainstream media -- TV networks and newspapers? There, too, though to a lesser degree perhaps, I suspect expression is more polarized as new channels become available that offer voices for specific points of view and older ones compete by narrowing their own focus.

This is, in a sense, a return to the marketplaces of ideas that existed a century and more ago. Then, each city had numerous dailies, each reflecting some part of the political spectrum, and the clash of ideas was vigorous. Over the course of the 20th century, as economic/governmental forces tended toward monopoly in many areas, discussion of ideas was channeled into fewer venues that sought, unconvincingly and with great dissatisfaction, to incorporate all viewepoints in a single, for example, daily newspaper. It was a failure. What they accomplished was a deep focus on the narrow centre and the marginalization and exclusion of voices outside that centre. Hardest hit since the end of the '50s, was (at least in North America) the conservative viewpoint, as the left/lib zeitgeist took hold of society. That exclusion led, in turn, to the development of new sources of expression, from magazines to TV networks to think tanks, in the '70s, '80s and '90s.

I see this multiplication of nodes of expression as a healthy development, despite the consequent rise of a rougher form of expression. Separate from this, however, is the role of anonymity afforded by the Internet and its impact on the level of debate. Overall, I again see it as overwhelmingly but not exclusively positive. Most of us here at Castanet, and elsewhere, post anonymously, and the vigorous exchanges of ideas that happen would frequently not occur if that were not so. They are not, alas, all delivered via the marquess of Queensbury rules. But I consider that a small price. Most seem to agree.

[Thinktank]

po·grom (p-grm, pgrm)
n.
An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews.

why is a pogrom 'especially' for one group ( Jews) and not 'especially' for another group?