Talk:Flash mob
 | Sociology Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Earlier Examples
In the mid-to-late late 1990s and the early 2000, the swing dance scene often engaged in what they referred to as "Lindy Bombs" where a group of dancers would show up at random places and start dancing Lindy Hop. Preferred places to attempt these were places with large numbers of people such as malls, restaurants, or popular parks. For a while there was also a trend where some would pile into a few cars or a vehicle that could hold a bunch of people and head for an intersection that was known to have a red light that lasted a long time. Once stopped at the red light, everyone would jump out, start dancing between the stopped vehicles, and before the light turned green again, would pile back into the vehicle. Typically, the more out of place the Lindy Bomb appeared in the location it was done, and the more people present to witness it, the better it was thought to be (same concept holds in Flash Mobs). Interestingly enough, a number of Flash Mobs that I've seen on YouTube are organized by former or current Lindy Hop swing dancers. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
White vs Black culture
User:Shii's changes to segregate the article into 'white' and 'black' culture is completely inappropriate, racist, and for the most part appear to be original research. For starters, where did he get "flash mobs in white culture"? There's no indication that there is even a 'white' culture of flash mobs as people from all ethnical backgrounds participate in flash mobs. Also, frankly, I'm even hesitant to have the Philly flash mobs as they were riots not really flash mobs. The only reason they are here is because its a prime case of the media using flash mobs to describe any large gathering, and in this particular case may have started from a simple flash mob. Mkdwtalk 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The media is referring to them as flash mobs because of the way they have been organized. A riot is an entirely different socialogical beast. The recent incidents in Philly and elsewhere have been designed with a specific illegal activity in mind. One must be careful to not turn it into a racial issue, but you cannot ignore that they are happening. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the media was not a reliable source. Shii (tock) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is creating controversy where it doesn't exist. The riots in London—for example—were started as what is described as "flash mobs" and the last I heard a good chunk of the the folks participating in those riots were chavs which the last I checked were as white as white can get. But that said, I have removed "African-American" from the description of Philadelphia violence. This stuff has 100% nothing to do with race but has to do with violence among idle, jerky youth in whatever country or region it occurs. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Look, we're mature enough to see this as a sociological problem and we're not going to slippery-slope into lyncing blacks just because we're noticing a trend. It's OK to talk about this. We should talked about this. Michael Nutter was not afraid to address "flash mobs" as a growing trend and problem in the black community. Thank God he's black so he's allowed to talk about this without being labeled a racist. Look at the picture in the New York Times [1]. It has 100% nothing to do with race? Fine. I understand that word is touchy. Let's call it a problem in the black "community". Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it. --cmtmoore (talk) 22 August 2011
- “Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it.” You’re being given more credit than you deserve considering your very clear confrontational tone towards anyone who disagrees with you. The issue is not race, but social status and class conflict. In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines, but the U.K. and other places it’s not. And stating it’s “black” achieves what exactly? Let’s say you race-baiting edits stand, will folks suddenly ”wake up” and say: “Hey, I know what the problem is! It’s those black kids!” and then what? How do you then explain “flash mobs” in the U.K. that are mixed race or other similar events elsewhere that are “monorace” for lack of a better term. The violent “flash mobs” are a class based issue. Not race. It’s 2011. Please get some perspective. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Louis CK has this joke where he's talking about a hasidic Jew trying to stuff an oversized bag into the overhead storage on an airplane, and he stops half way through the joke to aknowlegde that there's no reason for him to mention that the guy is a hasisidc Jew, it's totally not really releveant to the story, but he still mentions it, because it's was true, and that's just what you do. You paint the picture. It's bizzare that the media is dancing around mentioning "black youths" in these stories when it's such an immediate detail. Now, you're intelligent enough to know that I'm not wrong. In the particular instances in the United States flash mobs are being dominated by black youths. Now before you mention London again, when I say "don't be a pussy" I'm saying: don't be afraid to let the article reflect that "In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines." That seems like an interesting and important aspect of the story! It literally, semantically, does not mean that flash mobs can only be instigated by black people. All it means is that in a partcular area of the world, at a particular time in history, we saw a pattern. We saw class conflict. You're going to tell me that it's still irrelevant to mention race, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you were in a store and one of these Twitter flash mobs started, a bunch of black kids came in and stole everything, when you went home to tell the story to your freinds and family, would you mention that they were black kids at any point in the recount or would you just tell everyone that you witnessed a violent expression of class conflict and nothing more? --Cmtmoore (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- The main problem with geniuses like you Cmtmoore who want to point out race is you only do it when you get a chance to point out that black people have done something. It’s like you are sitting there behind your keyboard just waiting for the moment you can point out black people did something! Why not point out the pillow fight flash mobs were instigated by a mainly white core of people? Because it’s a stupid division. The vast majority of kids flash mobbing in Philadelphia are indeed black, but the motivation behind the flash mobbing was not race based. It was clearly class and crime based. Also, if I came across a store being looted by a bunch of kids, the very first thing I would say when I came home is simply say “The store was looted by a bunch of kids!” That’s it. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you had to say that you wouldn't mention race in the story to be consistent. But it's just weird. Like, what's wrong with saying that? Anyway. You could mention that pillow fights are done by white people. Factually true. It just doesn't seem like pillow fights are a problem drawn down race lines. Call me crazy for making this observation. I'm all for the embetterment of the black community and I priase people like Michael Nutter who have the balls to stand up and say maybe you could start trying to embetter yourselves and stop represening yourselves so poorly. This attitude doesn't mesh well with the liberal attitude that sees poor people purely as victims who are too weak to not succumb to crime. But they're not weak. They can embetter themslves.--Cmtmoore (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since you are a genius who is dividing the debate here into “liberal attitude” versus “balls” and/or “pussy” let me explain why I “wouldn't mention race” in your ridiculous example. I am white and grew up in a poor neighborhood of New York City that was mixed, but primarily lower class and the biggest bunch of “thugs” I had to deal with were predominantly white kids who were just thugs. This isn’t being said for consistency, it’s reality. If “flash mobs” happened in South Boston or Rhode Island, it would be white thugs beating up anyone. Also you say “I'm all for the embetterment of the black community…” I assure you absolutely nobody on Earth needs to hear your patronizing nonsense or needs your encouragement for “em-betterment.” But this is Wikipedia, not Cmtmoore-pedia. If you want to start your own collaborative project where people with “balls” who are not “pussies” tell it “like it is” go for it! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's just something laughable about not being allowed to say it.--Cmtmoore (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- And the reason you're not allowed to say it is obvious. It's because for people like SpyMagician, it hurts too much to hear. A description of reality that one cannot live with is better suppressed than addressed. His objections to mentioning it are primarily, if not totally emotional in nature. My apologies for messing up the discussion flow.184.174.148.13 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it a violation of NPOV to use personal anecdotes in an argument like this? 184.174.148.13 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since you are a genius who is dividing the debate here into “liberal attitude” versus “balls” and/or “pussy” let me explain why I “wouldn't mention race” in your ridiculous example. I am white and grew up in a poor neighborhood of New York City that was mixed, but primarily lower class and the biggest bunch of “thugs” I had to deal with were predominantly white kids who were just thugs. This isn’t being said for consistency, it’s reality. If “flash mobs” happened in South Boston or Rhode Island, it would be white thugs beating up anyone. Also you say “I'm all for the embetterment of the black community…” I assure you absolutely nobody on Earth needs to hear your patronizing nonsense or needs your encouragement for “em-betterment.” But this is Wikipedia, not Cmtmoore-pedia. If you want to start your own collaborative project where people with “balls” who are not “pussies” tell it “like it is” go for it! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you had to say that you wouldn't mention race in the story to be consistent. But it's just weird. Like, what's wrong with saying that? Anyway. You could mention that pillow fights are done by white people. Factually true. It just doesn't seem like pillow fights are a problem drawn down race lines. Call me crazy for making this observation. I'm all for the embetterment of the black community and I priase people like Michael Nutter who have the balls to stand up and say maybe you could start trying to embetter yourselves and stop represening yourselves so poorly. This attitude doesn't mesh well with the liberal attitude that sees poor people purely as victims who are too weak to not succumb to crime. But they're not weak. They can embetter themslves.--Cmtmoore (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- The main problem with geniuses like you Cmtmoore who want to point out race is you only do it when you get a chance to point out that black people have done something. It’s like you are sitting there behind your keyboard just waiting for the moment you can point out black people did something! Why not point out the pillow fight flash mobs were instigated by a mainly white core of people? Because it’s a stupid division. The vast majority of kids flash mobbing in Philadelphia are indeed black, but the motivation behind the flash mobbing was not race based. It was clearly class and crime based. Also, if I came across a store being looted by a bunch of kids, the very first thing I would say when I came home is simply say “The store was looted by a bunch of kids!” That’s it. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Louis CK has this joke where he's talking about a hasidic Jew trying to stuff an oversized bag into the overhead storage on an airplane, and he stops half way through the joke to aknowlegde that there's no reason for him to mention that the guy is a hasisidc Jew, it's totally not really releveant to the story, but he still mentions it, because it's was true, and that's just what you do. You paint the picture. It's bizzare that the media is dancing around mentioning "black youths" in these stories when it's such an immediate detail. Now, you're intelligent enough to know that I'm not wrong. In the particular instances in the United States flash mobs are being dominated by black youths. Now before you mention London again, when I say "don't be a pussy" I'm saying: don't be afraid to let the article reflect that "In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines." That seems like an interesting and important aspect of the story! It literally, semantically, does not mean that flash mobs can only be instigated by black people. All it means is that in a partcular area of the world, at a particular time in history, we saw a pattern. We saw class conflict. You're going to tell me that it's still irrelevant to mention race, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you were in a store and one of these Twitter flash mobs started, a bunch of black kids came in and stole everything, when you went home to tell the story to your freinds and family, would you mention that they were black kids at any point in the recount or would you just tell everyone that you witnessed a violent expression of class conflict and nothing more? --Cmtmoore (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- “Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it.” You’re being given more credit than you deserve considering your very clear confrontational tone towards anyone who disagrees with you. The issue is not race, but social status and class conflict. In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines, but the U.K. and other places it’s not. And stating it’s “black” achieves what exactly? Let’s say you race-baiting edits stand, will folks suddenly ”wake up” and say: “Hey, I know what the problem is! It’s those black kids!” and then what? How do you then explain “flash mobs” in the U.K. that are mixed race or other similar events elsewhere that are “monorace” for lack of a better term. The violent “flash mobs” are a class based issue. Not race. It’s 2011. Please get some perspective. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Look, we're mature enough to see this as a sociological problem and we're not going to slippery-slope into lyncing blacks just because we're noticing a trend. It's OK to talk about this. We should talked about this. Michael Nutter was not afraid to address "flash mobs" as a growing trend and problem in the black community. Thank God he's black so he's allowed to talk about this without being labeled a racist. Look at the picture in the New York Times [1]. It has 100% nothing to do with race? Fine. I understand that word is touchy. Let's call it a problem in the black "community". Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it. --cmtmoore (talk) 22 August 2011
- I think this is creating controversy where it doesn't exist. The riots in London—for example—were started as what is described as "flash mobs" and the last I heard a good chunk of the the folks participating in those riots were chavs which the last I checked were as white as white can get. But that said, I have removed "African-American" from the description of Philadelphia violence. This stuff has 100% nothing to do with race but has to do with violence among idle, jerky youth in whatever country or region it occurs. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the media was not a reliable source. Shii (tock) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Flash Mobs & Violence
I have done some small—and cited edits—to the main article to reflect the fact that for better or worse, the phrase “flash mob” is now being associated with acts of violence and rioting. I am not suggesting or have made edits to reflect other more playful/fun uses of the term “flash mob” are invalid, but presenting it as part of the full spectrum of the phrases use in culture. Another editor Mkdw has taken issue with the use of the violent connotations and has reverted my edits more than once, which I do not understand [2][3]. While there is clearly some controversy in the world as to who is to blame for the use of the phase “flash mob” in the context of violent acts—for better or worse—that is how it is being used in the media and in casual conversation. One cannot have an article about “flash mobs” and somehow ignore that fact. If someone can provide better citations, please do. But ignoring the current use of the phrase in 2011 (8 years after the first known use of the phrase) is a tad naive. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
U2 Streets have no Name
Certainly my Wiki skills are a little weak. Would making a link to the youtube video work as a reference? It's self evidently a record of a flash mob. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQxl9EI9YBg
This event seems to fit the both the Oxford "a public gathering of complete strangers organized by the internet or mobile phone, who perform a pointless act then disperse again", and the Webster definitions in the Wiki closely. And as the Wiki says < news media and promoters have subsequently used the term to refer to any form of smart mob, including political protests;[26] a collaborative Internet denial of service attack;[27] a collaborative supercomputing demonstration;[28] and promotional appearances by pop musicians.[29]> Surely as in all functional dictionaries popular usage is what ultimately defines a word. Perhaps you would like to park the event under <Notable Flash Mobs>? for the moment? 76.175.193.153 (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Publicity stunts and flash mobs are completely different. It'd be like adding Oprah's birthday celebration to the article riot. Everyone was wild, and even some unlawful things happened and someone was arrested for disrupting the peace, but that still does not make it a riot. Frankly, it's ridiculous to even propose that this music video is any way remotely related to flash mobs other than being organized as a street party. Mkdwtalk 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- 76.175.193.153 you say that this video fits the definition of flash mob since “organized by the internet or mobile phone.” That is 100% not the case. The song was released in 1987 and the video made in 1987. You also wrote “The location was leaked to fans and media…” C’mon, who leaked it? Some random person not connected to the band and the video production? This was not a spontaneous event that just formed at the spur of the moment. It was and is a publicity stunt choreographed for a music video. Nothing more and nothing less. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
SpyMagician Thank you. Respectfully: The first word of the quoted definition is "organized". So being organized is not a valid basis to exclude a particular flash mob. Every flash mob is organized, and not some "spontaneous" social effervescence."on the spur of the moment" The location of every flash mob is leaked by an organizer with a creative intention, not some "random" person. As for 1987, we did have and use "internet or mobile phones" back then, and to organize this event. Being "Choreographed" would seem to be an inherent feature of most flash mobs76.175.193.153 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)