Resistance is futile

I share this exchange from a site I post on a fair bit, but don't usually duplicate here.

It regards the BBC, (and I would commend 'Aunty and me' to get a background to where I am with regards to this entity) but also goes to my beliefs of freedom of speech, and their erosion through many, often innocuous means.

It also includes a bon mot I am proud of, and hope I invented... 'Blogstapo'.

This is going way off the topic of BBC bias
The mods may agree, but I fear I may not. From government through its mouthpiece to those who roam blogs to try and sideline 'off-message' threads, 'being a team player', 'not rocking the boat', and how such views get represented goes to the very core of how such as the BBC plays it part. I would reference any pol who is daft enough to query 'accepted dogma' and ends up not debating the issue but defending against accusations of 'talking down..', 'stirring hatred...', etc.

but have you considered that it may be your dogmatic individualism that is beyond reason?
Not in those terms, no. But then I have decided I am not... yet... the Borg. And would prefer not to be assimilated.

I simply claim my right (while I can) to have an opinion, reject others' attempts to tell me what I am thinking, and fail to accept that just because you might end up chatting in a group at a party you can thereafter be deemed to somehow to have absorbed some collective view... concocted by observers from across the room because they don't happen to like the background of one of the participants.

There would be a certain irony if... when Ms. Blears' Blogstapo kicks in that certain IP addresses gleaned from certain 'non-sycophant' sites were from those who were in fact defending the cause, but were lumped together when the squads move in. That's the problem with catch-alls. And hence why I am more of a fan of rugged individualism in deed... and description.

Human beings are adapted to work as a group,
Granted, but only to an extent. It's not, or at least shouldn't be 'you are either totally with us or you are totally against us', unless you are George W. (in daft word, mostly), various religious entities (often in dastardly deed, mostly).. or certain media outlets that now see all needs to be 'interpreted' to ensure it is 'understood' in the 'correct' way.

or do you believe a loose collection of individuals can out-compete a tight nit group held together by a strong culture?
Compete in what way? If you mean such as the loose collection of voices that come, stay and often leave the park corner soapbox that is this site raising concerns about what I think is now the near propaganda broadcast arm of the current power base, then I blooming well hope so. If nothing else, there is a commitment to giving voice to the individual, to debate, and if that focus starts to attract the interest of others then great. Just... let's hope with such growing power the inevitable does not soon follow. Then I'll be off.

It is my personal view, and one I seek to impose no more than by sharing it here, that there is an unhealthy groupthink from an out of touch minority 'elite' in Westminster, being brought to the majority in a less than balanced manner by another, this time unelected minority who think 'they' 'know' 'better'.

I beg to differ. And would seek to say so. Preferably through fact and proof above hype, spin, and 'interpretation' a la Jon Humphrys.

Or I could get absorbed by the hive and end up 'only obeying orders'.

No ta.