Yes, and when you attribute groupthink to someone who hasn’t demonstrated groupthink, that accusation of groupthink qualifies as a strawman.

No, straw man is falsely attacking their argument. “Groupthink” is falsely attacking their motivation. Not the same thing at all. ¶ Both are bad, but they are very different errors.

Actually, a strawman is attacking an argument no one stands by. And a strawman is also attacking a motivation no one stands by. And even your definitions of strawman and groupthink aren't mutually exclusive of each other. Strawman and groupthought don't have to be the same thing for Brian's example to qualify as both.

I really don’t understand this feeling of persecution or being ostracized.

It's more fun that way.

Brian and Bill - avowed Whorrisons, sure.
Brad, MarkAndrew, and the Gregs - like certain works, don't like others, and give him fair criticism.

And that's the lay of the land. 4 to 2, and the majority are not the huge fans.

I really don't understand this feeling of persecution or being ostracized.

We're all kinda dumb sometimes. Start by figuring it might be your turn this time.

No, straw man is falsely attacking their argument. "Groupthink" is falsely attacking their motivation. Not the same thing at all.

Both are bad, but they are very different errors.

While I agree with you on the point that there are idiots out there, I don't think Brian was arguing that groupthink doesn't exist. His point seems to be (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that making such a case is pointless because

A.) you don't ever REALLY know what someone is thinking,

and

(this part is me; Brian may or may not agree) B.) accusing someone of groupthink is wildly unlikely to change their opinion, or indeed, have any effect other than helping to lower the level of discourse. How often on the internet have you ever seen the phrase "By God, you're right! My opinions are thoughtlessly absorbed from whoever is standing nearby! I hardly ever use my brain at all! Thanks, kind sir, for turning my life around!"
If someone's really being an idiot, I find that ignoring them and responding to the smart people is much more satisfying for all involved. If many people really do seem to agree with whatever the person's saying, well, maybe it's time to start asking the more articulate ones why they feel the way they do.

If "but everyone feels that way" is REALLY their only argument, it's pretty easy to demonstrate logically why that's flawed without making vaguely insulting accusations (Britney Spears had the #1 album in America; Poe died broke, etc).

Rene, I agree completely. Bravo.

Sorry, I didn't want to appear like I was trying to shut people up. And really, I wasn't even thinking about Morrison particularly. I like Morrison, but I'm not a uber-fan of his, and I surely don't take offense if people don't like him.

What bugs me is this general attitude of people dwelling on the stuff they hate. It appears a little unhealthy. And it's not just restricted to comics. It's movies, books, TV shows, celebs.

See, J. R. R. Tolkien is a sacred writer to many. I hate Tolkien and always thought his books were utterly boring and also socially conservative. And I used to complain about Tolkien to any fantasy fan that was willing to listen to my rants. Then I realized how silly I was acting and that my rants and negative attitude had a lot more to do with frustration over other aspects of my personal life than anything to do with books...

Spiffy -

Fair enough. I'm not really into this sort of thing. I mean, being a fan of a fictional universe, or a specific character. I usually follow creators. Even so, there is always lots of fiction out there. If your usual fictional universe of choice is bad right now, that is a wonderful opportunity to look for other stuff that you may enjoy. I know I'm sounding a bit Pollyana, but I really think it's healthier than spending time in a board only complaining about stuff you hate.

So he wasn’t trolling.

Although it is a bit disappointing to see him now frame it as though he was being picked on for disliking Seaguy.<<

Actually, I *meant* to frame it as suggesting I'd been picked on (as you put it) because I expressed dislike for Morrison & questioned some of his fans' motivation for viewing it as excellent. Not a big deal, one way or the other. But yeah, I mentioned SEAGUY simply because (a) the topic was its author, Morrison & (b) it just so happened that I'd read SEAGUY only a few days before. Pure coincidence, at least from my standpoint.

For instance, in real life there are some ting you just can't argue with certain 13 year olds. They'll know what their friends tell them to think and that's it. Reason(ing) doesn't enter into it. Same for e.g. rabid political partisans for whom anyting is evaluated through "us vs them" first and foremost.
In either case calling "groupthink" is no only a valid argument, it's the only (non-)argument worth having with such an opponent.

Straw man is the logical fallacy of refuting something your opponent did not say, then acting like that refuted what he did say. ¶ Groupthink is a situation where members of a group all support the same views, without critical thought, because it allows them to be part of the group.

Yes, and when you attribute groupthink to someone who hasn't demonstrated groupthink, that accusation of groupthink qualifies as a strawman. Groupthink and strawman are not mutually exclusive terms, and the post you are responding to doesn't depend on them being interchangeable terms to be true.

It comes up a lot, not counting you at all - there really is no one person that I'm "blaming" here.

Just the entire argument as a whole.

So let us be pals once more! I will buy you an ice cream cone!

Oh well. You’ll have a Theory of Comics about this in a couple of weeks I suspect.

I have one right now: Posts that begin with "I love how (insert something I dislike)" almost never have anything of value to add to a discussion.

The way you say you've handled it is fine by me.

You just don't get involved in those discussions. That's fine.

Yes, I'd prefer to see folks come in and argue their points (as someone else mentioned, discussions ARE fun), and I'd be glad to see opposing viewpoints, but if you're unable to do so without falling back on the groupthink stuff, then yeah, better to avoid them!

So good on you, Chris, and I hope you end up eventually hoeing that row!

Nice column... though, at times there does feel like there's a bit of a hive mind here (especially on the Morrison front).

I've myself refrained from posting in the Morrison columns for fear of being belittled or condescended to for being "not smart enough" to glean enjoyment from a story here or there. The Filth and We3 (read it, didn't like it... bought a dog, read it again, still didn't like it)... and, yeah... I *got* them... just didn't like them. Still glad I read them, though.

Personally, I'm a huge Morrison fan, loved most enerything the man's written (that I've had the opportunity to read... very happy that "Kill Your Boyfriend" has been resolicited!), but I can totally feel for folks that pipe up with a discenting opinion in this neck'o the woods.

I don't think I've ever read a reply to an "I didn't like like such and such GM story" that didn't descend into an exercise in pretention by "comic book intellectuals" that didn't ultimately devolve into a "You are stupid", "No, You are stupid" argument.

Makes for a somewhat entertaining read, to be sure... but at the end of the day, nothing's been resolved... and there are hurt feelings.

Again, nice column, and I definitely agree with it's goal... but, I fear it'll be a tough row to hoe.

A. It's "Cronin Theory of Comics," presumably there is a hint there that this is my personal take on things, no?

and

B.

It Is a Lot Harder To Move From Another Media To Comics Than Is Given Credit

Last Page Turns Should Be Used Fairly

Don’t Be Self Conscious About Writing Superhero Comics AKA “Why Puny Humans No Write Hulk Dialogue?”

A Reaction Is Not Enough

Avoid the Big Event

Don’t Make Guarantees You Can’t Guarantee

Creators and Their Work Are Two Separate Entities

Theories on Comic Book Death

Treat Comic Creators Respectfully

“Why Should I Change, He’s the One Who Sucks”

The Erasure Point of Comic Book Grief

Chuck Austen: Harbinger

Fan-fiction is a Limited Critique

Serialized Fiction Is Judged Individually

Detailed Plot Synopses Are Lame

It Doesn’t Matter If Bronze Tiger Can Beat You Up

Don’t Compete With Your Readers

Nostalgia/Importance Quotient

Dr. Strange Isn’t a Walking Plot Device

Comic Reviews

Good Characters Should Be Written in Comics

Keith Giffen As Plotting God - Scripting Devil.

So....huh?

Which is your perogative Brian, but it's not a "Theory of Comics". It's "Cronin's Editorial on Something Else Said I Didn't Much Like On Comics Should Be Good"

Oh well. You'll have a Theory of Comics about this in a couple of weeks I suspect.

Liking is a matter of personal taste, but can we recognize that not getting a Grant Morrison comic is a legitimate complaint? Being confused by some of his storytelling choices and references can be frustrating.
I don’t need everything in a story spoonfed to me, but reading a comic that confuses me does not make me want to pick up the next issue. As I said, I like Morrison’s writing, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can understand why others do not."

I agree. Let's respect people's opinions, whether they like/dislike his (or any other creator's) work. Groupthink does go both ways...

"Everyone mostly likes Watchmen, right? Everyone mostly likes Batman Year One and Born Again, right?"

Well....:D

Although it is a bit disappointing to see him now frame it as though he was being picked on for disliking Seaguy.

That's rough.

The sort of person who doesn't like Sea Guy is obviously living a joyless existence as it is, and deserves pity, not more pain.

What?