Mob Mentality

            It always boggles my mind how easily people’s opinions are swayed, particularly in this age where information is so accessible. Discovering the truth of a situation is a bit of quick research away, and only requires a little bit of critical thinking to figure out the truth.

            For example, word reached my ears this week that J.K. Rowling is homophobic. I laughed, because anyone who knows anything about that woman knows this to be untrue. However, a lot of people – even professionals in the literary world – were buying into this rumor. So I did my research – and I still can’t believe that people are believing this rumor when all they have to do is read.

            The evidence for J.K. Rowling being homophobic is that someone involved with the latest Harry Potter movie said that Dumbledore (known to be a gay character) will not be openly gay in the movie. So people immediately assumed that, since Rowling wrote the screenplay, she was chickening out from presenting the character as gay. The mob mentality roused and people began haranguing the Rowling about it.

            Her response was quite simple and to the point. She muted people on social media, saying that she wasn’t going to accept abuse from people who read an interview that she wasn’t involved with about a screenplay they hadn’t read – incidentally, a screenplay that was the first in a five part series.

            Somehow, people took this as proof that Rowling is homophobic, when it is quite literally staying the opposite. It’s almost explicitly stating that Dumbledore, while perhaps not portrayed as openly gay in the first movie, will become so over the course of the series.

            Yet, the rumor has been started – and people are believing it. Why? It’s so easy to find the truth, but people are so eager (as with political situations) to believe the first thing they read that they don’t go digging. They would rather believe a falsehood and flip their opinion about a person or a subject than do a bit of research.

            Why? Is it simply not worth the effort to fact check? Is it mob mentality – everyone else is saying it, so let’s not go against the crowd? Is it pure emotion – has the internet given us such a safe place to lash out at the smallest provocation that we no longer show any restraint? Is it simply that people care so little about their opinions that they don’t care if they change their mind about it, so they go with the clickbait headlines rather than the facts?

            To me, it speaks to something rotten at the core of our society. What it comes down to is that news is viewed as a form of entertainment – not by those who consume it, but by those who create it. This has come to be because, given a choice between news that is boring and news that is entertaining, people will always choose the one that’s entertaining – so the news has become more entertaining, more dramatic, to compete. The result is that facts and truth get lost amid a swirl of opinions and misdirections intended to draw people in.

            And, slowly, the truth has stopped mattering to us. It’s the entertainment that matters. People believe what they read, because they trust the source – or, conversely, distrust what they read from sources they don’t like, regardless of accuracy. Many even believe satirical articles that they didn’t realize was satirical.

            So, is that all it is? Do people no longer care what’s real? Is it too difficult for us to figure out what’s real?

            Or is it just easier to follow the crowd? After all, when has a mob ever been wrong?

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

To see the chainmaille my wife and I make, click here.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Opinionated Facts

            We humans have a very bad habit of assuming our opinions are facts. It seems a strange thing to do, but we do it nevertheless, and, once they’re formed, we will defend our opinions ‘til the end of the world, often regardless of other information.

            The fact that a man lies dead in his bed is indisputable. Yet, with no other information than that single sentence, you just formed an opinion about the cause of his death. If you readers were to express those opinions to each other, there’s a good chance you would end up arguing about it. Some would say the man died of natural causes, comfortably in his bed. Others would say he was murdered. Some might even posit that an accident occurred where he slipped and bumped his head on the side of the bed.

            A few more facts would only fuel the argument. The dead man is splayed on the bed, face down. It can be argued that this is how he sleeps, possibly tossing and turning. Of course, it could also be that he was killed, and that’s how he landed – or perhaps he was smothered. The splayed position also works for someone who has fallen.

            A glass of some clear liquid lies spilled on the floor beside the bed. That may sway some of those who believe that this was a natural death to the side of the murder-believers, but the staunchest supporters will insist that he could have knocked it off the bedside table as he slept. On the other hand, it could be poisoned. Is it even water? Perhaps the man had been drinking, which led to that fateful bump on the head.

            Facts are points of information, but what they mean is so often opinion. This is evident in the scientific process – when an experiment is designed, it is done with the intent of proving a specific theory – which means that there is already an opinion about what the results will reveal. If there is any room for interpretation in those results, what do you think the findings will be?

            The more we discover, the more humans become aware of this discrepancy. It has led many to believe that there is no such thing as reality – that facts are only there to support reality. This has led to all kinds of confusion and even beliefs that the facts, themselves, may be changed to suit one’s needs.

            However, there obviously is only one reality (the one I believe in, of course), otherwise we wouldn’t be able to interact in it. The real trouble comes from the facts – or, rather, either the lack of facts, or the way the facts are presented. For there is far too much information in the world for one person to discover on their own, and the only way to get a sufficient amount of facts is through someone else’s opinion.

            That means we are required to trust someone else’s opinion in order to gain the information we require. That seems reasonable enough – only, why would you trust the opinions of someone who has a different opinion than you?

            So, the facts are that a man lies dead on his bed. He’s splayed face-down, and there’s a spilled glass of a clear liquid on the floor. There’s also a red silk scarf wrapped around his neck. How did he die?

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Different Obvious

            When I was in grade 10, my English class read Lord of the Flies. I can’t say I remember all that much about the book, but I do have a very distinct memory of the projects we presented in front of the class.

            We were split into groups and each group had to do a presentation on the same set of questions. I don’t know if all the other groups handled the project the same way, but my group split the questions up, making each member of the group responsible for presenting the answer to their questions.

            The questions I took asked me to define what, in the book, was the Lord of the Flies and the Monster that was frequently mentioned. I chose the questions because the answer was so clear and obvious to me.

            When it came time for the presentations, my group went last. So, before making my presentation, I first heard the question answered by several other people. I was astounded – every answer presented was almost exactly the same. They boiled down to, “The Lord of the Flies is the pig head the boys put on a stake, and the Monster is the dead parachuter stuck on the cliff.” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Everyone had the same answer but me.

            When I stood up to present my answer, I started by saying, “Well, my answer is a bit different than what others have said.” I then proceeded to explain how the Monster, while personified by the dead parachuter, was a representation of all the fears of the group of boys stranded on the island. Meanwhile, the Lord of the Flies was all the anger, hatred and violence that was awakened in the boys by their need to survive and their desires to do whatever they wanted. This was, of course, given visual representation by the bloody pig head on a spike, swarming with flies.

            I remember the class staring at me, dumbfounded. I don’t recall if the teacher’s expression was shocked or impressed – and I have no memory of the mark I received on the project.

            But I did find a deep understanding from that experience. You see, to me, the answer my classmates gave was too simple – they were facts pretty much stated in the book. What was the point in even asking those questions if there wasn’t something more? But others stopped at that answer, because, yes, it was obvious.

            However, to me, my answer was just as obvious. It was simply more abstract, but it had to be what the question was asking about. On the other hand, the stares I received told me that what was obvious to me hadn’t been obvious to others.

            From that, I learned that different things are obvious to different people – and that, generally speaking, when people find something they believe obvious, they stop. It’s obvious – why would they think about it further?

            I learned that, just because something is obvious, that doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everyone.

Something being obvious doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her life coaching website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Truth or Satire?

            A few years ago, I found myself reading an article about a recent study. The article talked about how this study, funded by a major oil corporation, had found that an increase in solar power would kill the sun faster, literally sucking the energy out of it to make our electricity.

            At the time, I was unaware that this was a satirical journalism website. Nothing clearly labelled it as such. However, as I simply couldn’t believe what the ridiculous article claimed, I started doing research to find out the validity. Before I discovered t was a satire site, I found myself going through the comments, seeing if people were believing what the article claimed.

            Most didn’t. Likely, many were aware that the whole article was a joke. However, there were some who fervently believed that this was true – solar energy was sucking energy out of the sun and would cause it to burn out faster.

            Since then, I have seen numerous satirical articles shared on social media by people who think they are real. Because they share some of the views being mocked by the satirical tone, they readily believe the articles without taking the time to check the information.

            It is so indicative of society. We see something official looking, so we automatically believe it. Researching takes too much time and effort. So, if we want or fear it to be true, we’ll believe it.

            On the rare occasion that someone wants to look into the validity of what they’re reading, it’s nearly impossible to get a confirmation unless you can get to the source. With the internet, information is right at our fingertips – but so is misinformation.

            Sarcastic and satirical people often make the mistake of thinking others understand their sense of humour. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of literal people in the world, who take everything at face value. It’s no wonder there are so many people with no understanding of each other.

            Adding to the trouble is the requirement for news to be entertainment. I saw an episode of Gilmore Girls the other day where the main character, aspiring to be a journalist, had her writing criticised for not having her opinions in it. It’s the sad truth about our news these days – it’s all about the opinions of the people presenting it.

            What we really need is a news service called something like “Just the Facts” which presents nothing but the facts of a situation. Then people are given the freedom to decide what they think for themselves.

            But, that wouldn’t be entertaining enough, would it? And it sounds like a lot of work. Why would we want to make up our own minds about things when it’s so much simpler to agree with someone else? There’s no need to think when you can blindly follow.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her life coaching website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.