Anyone here about this? or similar 'flash mobs'? Sigh, the world is falling apart...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024223/Wisconsin-State-Fair-attacks-Philadelphia-Mayor-Michael-Nutter-blasts-racist-flash-mob.html
I can't believe how bad it is getting. I'm lucky to be isolated from the incidents, but it doesn't make it any easier to handle. I'm afraid for the future. If there could ever be a miracle, I think now would be the time to have it.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/caught-on-tape%3A-philadelphia-teen-mob-attack-080811
Another flash mob event.
That is not a flash mob.
A flash mob is where people get together to spontaneously "perform".... the AT&T commercial that takes place in Grand Central Station is about flash mobs. (Where a man throws off his coat, starts dancing and shouts "We are!" and realized he started too soon.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Mob
These are just random acts of violence. Flash Mobs are not violent.
Bt
Funny how you claim 'flash mobs' are never violent, and then use Wikipedia as evidence! Yet there is a whole section on the 'violent' Philly 'flash mobs'! Which by the way according to the Philly Mayor and other experts appears to be completely racially motivated action (in protest of some perceived 'opression')!
Actually I personally think any thing can be made to be good or bad, almost everything starts as an 'amoral' action (neither good nor bad)...
There is actually are groups that are starting up, 'Flash Mobs of Kindness" as a counter protests to these more violent thieving riots!
Some of this more violent stuff may be inspired by this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coming_Insurrection
A book by French anarchist movements, and very popular among American anarchists.
You can read the entire pamphlet here;
http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf
In anycase, words can change meaning over time among cultures, or begin to include new meanings (or completely different meanings, sometimes opposites).
http://writinghood.com/style/grammar/eight-words-which-have-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time
Yeah, the Wikipedia article has a very small section about the Philly Riots, which are incorrectly labeled as "Flash Mobs" that information is incorrect - those incidences are not flash mobs, but rather acts of violence coordinated by electronic means.
Bt
A better definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flash+mob
Flash mobs should not be labelled as violent.
Well, I've been lucky so far; Boston, to my knowledge, hasn't experienced any of these acts of violence. Lets hope it stays that way.
Chris: I take it you don't recall the aftermath (http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-22/us/fan.death_1_victoria-snelgrove-police-commissioner-kathleen-o-toole-dreadful-irony?_s=PM:US) of the Red Sox winning the world series in 2004.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/annette_john-hall/20110816_Annette_John-Hall__Why_no_focus_on_kids_who_apologized_for_flash-mob_violence_.html
This article makes reference to a 'random act of violence' occuring in Boston... But I have no idea what they are referring to. A lone wolf maybe?
Or are they just tieing all the high crime rate together?
http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-06/news/29744115_1_police-ramp-shootings-and-stabbings-violence
QuoteChris: I take it you don't recall the aftermath of the Red Sox winning the world series in 2004.
Earlier this year was also violent riots in Vancouver over the Stanley Cup win by the Bostonians! Violent riots over a game... silly. In this case it was the Canadians that had a violent riot.
They really are silly. But they happen. Boston had some crazy riots when the Sox came in second in 2003, I think--a friend of mine lost his phone in that one--and then there were the 2004 riots (someone dying is the worst of it, but there was destruction of property, burned cars, etc, in that one as well), and then when they won again in 2007, the police were ready for it and kept things from getting out of hand again.
Things like that happened on a smaller scale at my college when we won big sports victories, too. I never did anything crazy or destructive myself, but I was in the crowds that amassed for more than one of them. I still couldn't quite say why people do it--in one of those crowds, our football team beat our rival in an away game, and back on campus there was a crowd that gathered outside our football stadium. A set of the practice field uprights ended up getting jumped on by a lot of people and tilted from the weight as people tried to pull them down. Which makes NO SENSE at all to do, but I can remember thinking that was funny or awesome or something other than stupid and pointless at the time regardless.
These actions happen due to a mob mentality. In the case of sporting events, it's a mob mentality along with people attaching their egos to sports teams. Your team wins and people want to be a part of that, so they rush the field. Your team just won, so you feel you won, and you want to share the joy, so you rush to the place the team was just playing. Once one person does it, others will follow. At that point you get the mob mentality.
When you're in a group, your sense of identity is gone. You no longer feel like a responsible person but rather a part of a larger force. So you do things that you wouldn't normally do because it's no longer you. You're a part of a whole. Personal accountability vanishes. All it takes is one person to start a violent act and others will join in because all individuality is gone. So now you've got a group on the field, celebrating, their collective egos stoked by the victory. Those goal posts are coming down. One of my suitemates in college was actually part of that (he actually showed up in a crowd shot in a Sports Illustrated spread.) He came into our suite sobbing and when we asked him what was wrong, we discovered he'd been tear gassed. But riots did happen quite a few times at college. Particularly if we beat Michigan. I could start a whole new topic on how much Michigan sucks, but I will abstain for now. GO BUCKEYES!
Anyway, the mob mentality is behind the riots as well. There might be socioeconomic, racial, or political sparks that lead to the beginnings of riots, but they evolve from there into a mob mentality with people doing things they never would have done if they were on their own.
I agree Katie it doesn't make any sense.I guess it's something about the mob mentality that makes people do stuff the never do normally. There are students at a university in my home state who are known to burn couches (NO I do not go there; i merely convey rumors)
I think the 'mob' mentality is driven by their pressure points being pushed, so to speak. For the most part, people can keep their cool, but when agitated, those people can do drastic things for the 'greater good'. For instance, a few years back, a man had come to my college and was given permission by the administration to promote his 'message' to the students. It nearly became a hate crime, when he proceeded in notifying all the students that they were going to go to hell because of their ethnic background or because of their differing beliefs in religion. The students were outraged. Some thought that it would be funny to mock him while he was preaching, but the school had announced that he had the right to promote his beliefs and insisted that the students should not mock him.
Other students however felt like it would be crucial to band together and point out to the administration that they were in the wrong for allowing the man on campus. After the one day of racism and religious ostracism, the man ceased showing his face at the school again (for reasons unknown). Aside from his disappearance from the school, the kids suggested that the school should at least comment on the event. The school refused to speak of it again (at least to my knowledge). The kids did not burn down a building or assault a civilian. It was more or less pacifistic, minus the insults that were thrown the man's way. Apparently, the man was within his right to approach the school and ask for permission to provoke its students in a negative way. He was using his freedom of speech.
However, when a law gets in the way of what is right, shouldn't people have the right to stand up against it? I think violent riots are wrong, because they are missing the point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Turn the other cheek. So on, so forth. But the 'mob' mentality is most likely fueled by confusion or a lack of an explanation. I just don't believe that the 'mob' mentality is fueled by pure chaos. That would truly be detrimental to society in the long run, I think. But something as small as the freedom of speech could motivate a group of people to fight for something.
The stupid, crazy mobs that do random acts of violence after games (whether they win or lose) is just plain idiotic. I wouldn't know how to justify those kind of events. Maybe the alcohol? The drugs? Both?
Again though, there's a difference between a mob mentality and people being under stress or faced with injustice. Injustice and ideation can act as a spark to action, but once you're dealing with a large group, that all can go out the window. When you're dealing with a mob mentality there are no individuals and no personal accountability. When people are anonymous they act in ways they never normally would. Precedents for this exist throughout history. The example of Kitty Genovese, the woman who was stabbed and died crying out for help within earshot of her entire community is one example of how people behave when they're anonymous. They've done psychological tests where it was discovered that if you just ask for help on the street (asking for directions, I believe is what they did) no one will stop to help. But if you single someone out ("hey you, with the awesome Ohio State shirt can you please help me for a second") you're more likely to get a response. You've suddenly held them accountable where previously accountability did not exist. Heck, one could argue that the comments section on any website is a non-regulated illustration of how people will act when they have no personal identifiers. You have people who normally don't act out in society who suddenly in an internet comment section will spout off vitriolic homophobic and racist statements. It's not that the the KKK suddenly got a YouTube account. It's that when you remove personal accountability people will say and do things they normally would not.
So that's magnified when you're dealing with an actual mob. Your face is lost in the crowd and so is your personal accountability. There are no consequences for you, the individual, because you, the individual, have ceased to exist. So when one person throws a brick and starts to loot, you're going to follow suit. Or more likely, people around him will follow suit which will act as a domino effect throughout the crowd and people will simply follow. If you want a safe illustration of the mob mentality, go to a play and watch during the final bow. One person will stand up long before the two leads come out to bow. Once that person stands, another nearby will stand as well. Then a third. Then maybe three more. Then a whole row. Then suddenly the entire theater will stand. It's a group mentality. No one is thinking individually. The group is standing and you will too. It's how our minds work. And what goes for standing during an ovation also goes for flipping over cars, looting, and burning couches.
QuoteIt nearly became a hate crime
If you are living in the US, currently any 'speech' is not a hate crime. The only 'hate crimes' recognized is if someone physically commits another crime such injury, murder, robbery, etc, based on their hate.
Just look at that Westboro 'mob', who spout hate all the time... Its constitutionally protected speech according to the 'constitution' and the 'Supreme Court'.
Equally, those who disagree also have the right to counter protest, as that is protected speech. As long as they don't commit crimes in the process of their protest!
Beyond that a private organization (which many schools may fall under) may decide there own 'limits' on the grounds of their school, as to what can be said, or what can be shown. Although they may be going counter to 'discrimination laws' in the state or federal government. In which case groups like ACLU may step in with a lawsuit.
Quote from: Damar on August 17, 2011, 06:08:41 AM
Again though, there's a difference between a mob mentality and people being under stress or faced with injustice. Injustice and ideation can act as a spark to action, but once you're dealing with a large group, that all can go out the window. When you're dealing with a mob mentality there are no individuals and no personal accountability. When people are anonymous they act in ways they never normally would. Precedents for this exist throughout history. The example of Kitty Genovese, the woman who was stabbed and died crying out for help within earshot of her entire community is one example of how people behave when they're anonymous. They've done psychological tests where it was discovered that if you just ask for help on the street (asking for directions, I believe is what they did) no one will stop to help. But if you single someone out ("hey you, with the awesome Ohio State shirt can you please help me for a second") you're more likely to get a response. You've suddenly held them accountable where previously accountability did not exist. Heck, one could argue that the comments section on any website is a non-regulated illustration of how people will act when they have no personal identifiers. You have people who normally don't act out in society who suddenly in an internet comment section will spout off vitriolic homophobic and racist statements. It's not that the the KKK suddenly got a YouTube account. It's that when you remove personal accountability people will say and do things they normally would not.
So that's magnified when you're dealing with an actual mob. Your face is lost in the crowd and so is your personal accountability. There are no consequences for you, the individual, because you, the individual, have ceased to exist. So when one person throws a brick and starts to loot, you're going to follow suit. Or more likely, people around him will follow suit which will act as a domino effect throughout the crowd and people will simply follow. If you want a safe illustration of the mob mentality, go to a play and watch during the final bow. One person will stand up long before the two leads come out to bow. Once that person stands, another nearby will stand as well. Then a third. Then maybe three more. Then a whole row. Then suddenly the entire theater will stand. It's a group mentality. No one is thinking individually. The group is standing and you will too. It's how our minds work. And what goes for standing during an ovation also goes for flipping over cars, looting, and burning couches.
Still, the actual motivation behind joining in with a mob has to be deeper than that. I don't know of many people who will start tipping over cop cars and burn couches unless they were trying to make a statement. If people started burning couches in the middle of the road, I would probably more than likely find a safe route home than to pull over and lend them a hand. If someone thought that it's fun to be in a violent mob, then that person is suffering from psychiatric dementia and knows just how to hide it. Although, I do agree that people feel like they are wearing a mask when they enter a mob. That's enough reason to stay inside a mob, but the reason to join a mob? It's borderline insanity.
Quote from: Baggins on August 17, 2011, 09:38:26 AM
QuoteIt nearly became a hate crime
If you are living in the US, currently any 'speech' is not a hate crime. The only 'hate crimes' recognized is if someone physically commits another crime such injury, murder, robbery, etc, based on their hate.
Just look at that Westboro 'mob', who spout hate all the time... Its constitutionally protected speech according to the 'constitution' and the 'Supreme Court'.
Equally, those who disagree also have the right to counter protest, as that is protected speech. As long as they don't commit crimes in the process of their protest!
Beyond that a private organization (which many schools may fall under) may decide there own 'limits' on the grounds of their school, as to what can be said, or what can be shown. Although they may be going counter to 'discrimination laws' in the state or federal government. In which case groups like ACLU may step in with a lawsuit.
I was going overboard by using that as a metaphor, but yes, I know what a hate crime is. Considering that there were no laws being broken (if anything, they were being upheld), then there can't be a 'crime' present. Agreed.
I do think that the students were being wronged though when the administration told the students to not antagonize him. It's almost as though the school was for the man's message, but that almost sounds silly. I guess the school could argue that they didn't want the students to be distracted by the man's bickering, but wouldn't disallowing him from coming on to the campus in the first place be a better solution?
Well out civility, "antagonization" would probably fall under 'Provocation' laws. As in 'Provoke' someone into commiting a crime. It's one thing to counter protest, it's another intentionally "provoke" your opponent into doing something physical.
What constitutes as "Provocation" could vary. It's possible his 'hate-filled rhetoric' could have 'provoked' the counter protesters into a violent riot. Like yelling "fire" in a theatre could provoke terror in the audience.
There is a big arguement that the Westboro nuts are intentionally provocateurs looking for those they picket, trying to intice violence.
If the police for example act as agent provocateurs, it can throw out their case! But its often used to disrupt protests.
Holding up signs, should never be considered "antagonization" or "provocation". If they started throwing tomatoes or rocks or molotovs on the other hand... That would be criminal.
Also if someone tries to 'interupt' a speaker, they might find themselves escorted away... This is quite normal actually. Most places have a 'respect' the speaker rule, and wait for question and answer period before questions and comments can be made.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that the school, 'supported the speaker', by letting him speak. I'm somewhat impressed that they would give a controversial speaker a chance to speak, rather than blocking him. Blocking him, could have possibly lead to an ACLU lawsuit even. They may have just been following standard 'decorum' given to all speakers visiting the school.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on August 17, 2011, 11:41:14 AM
Still, the actual motivation behind joining in with a mob has to be deeper than that. I don't know of many people who will start tipping over cop cars and burn couches unless they were trying to make a statement. If people started burning couches in the middle of the road, I would probably more than likely find a safe route home than to pull over and lend them a hand. If someone thought that it's fun to be in a violent mob, then that person is suffering from psychiatric dementia and knows just how to hide it. Although, I do agree that people feel like they are wearing a mask when they enter a mob. That's enough reason to stay inside a mob, but the reason to join a mob? It's borderline insanity.
You're assuming that someone is making a conscious choice to join a mob once it's already started being violent. Some people do, but they're about looting and criminal activity. There's a difference between a person walking down the street and seeing a mob and the person in the middle of it. And being in the middle of the mob may have been a benign act in the first place. Maybe you walked down to see what was going on (when Pittsburgh hosted the G20, I had a walk around just to see how they had downtown on lockdown. If a protest had gotten violent I would have been right in the middle of it without me seeking out a mob). Likewise if you're at a sports event, you're in the middle of a mob. If that mob gets ugly, you're not choosing to be part of it, you simply are part of it by default. You were already in the crowd and now there's not an easy way out.
And certainly not everyone is going to completely behave like a mindless drone, but the thing about crowds is that there's a lot of people. And the more a certain mood is set, the more likely it is that people will join in because they're not thinking about consequences. Mental illness really doesn't enter into the equation. This is how humanity as a species thinks and operates.
Quote from: Damar on August 17, 2011, 01:37:29 PM
And certainly not everyone is going to completely behave like a mindless drone, but the thing about crowds is that there's a lot of people. And the more a certain mood is set, the more likely it is that people will join in because they're not thinking about consequences. Mental illness really doesn't enter into the equation. This is how humanity as a species thinks and operates.
I would disagree.
Ultimately, though, that's what the research shows about mob mentality. The psychology of human decision making is actually pretty depressing. If you remove personal accountability, people are capable of some nasty things. The classic example of this is the Milgram experiment. People were told that they were taking part in the testing of a new learning experiment and would give electric shocks to another participant in another room that they could hear over a speaker. If the person answered wrong, they'd get a shock. What they didn't know was that person was a confederate in the experiment. After a few shocks the confederate would start yelling that he had a heart condition. After a few more shocks he'd be screaming in pain. For the last part of the experiment there would be nothing but silence. He wouldn't answer questions, he wouldn't respond when zapped. It was like he was dead in the other room. The person running the experiment would put no pressure on the person giving the shocks. The only thing they would say was "you must continue." A majority of people in the experiment saw it through to the end, delivering shocks to a silent confederate. In their mind, they weren't the ones who were responsible, it was the person running the experiment who was making them zap the poor guy. They were just following orders.
The Stanford prison experiment showed how power corrupted students and how being oppressed led to adversarial and aggressive behaviors. Ultimately the experiment had to be shut down.
Group think is a well documented effect where people will polarize when they're in a group of people who agree with them. Let's say I don't agree politically with Obama. I might be able to articulate what I believe and I may even agree with him on some things. But if I then go to a Tea Party rally, suddenly any middle ground I share with the president is going to vanish and I'll start agreeing with people who are shouting that they want to see the birth certificate (the real one this time!)
Everything that's been done to study human behavior and psychology points to us acting in a completely different way when we remove personal accountability. Because where there's no accountability there's no consequences. Heck, for another illustration look no further than addicts. True, a number of addicts may be self medicating for mental health concerns, but a good number just have a straight up addiction. Someone might start with a strong sense of morality, but once you focus only on that instant gratification and the need for the next hit, people start doing things they never thought they would do before. Stealing from friends or family, breaking the law, lying all the time. Personal accountability no longer enters into the equation and the person will act accordingly.
You take all these ideas and add in the fact that people become faceless in the crowd and you get a mob mentality. It's uncomfortable to think that we're capable of this, but we are. From the kid who makes fun of their less popular friend because it's what the cool kids are doing to someone pulling down the goal posts at the end of a football game, people give themselves over to the group mentality.
Hmm, this is more of a lone wolf issue... But I surely hope its not the direction we are going.
http://www.wtol.com/story/15273318/lambertville-vandalism-turns-life-threatening
Basically, a union member targeted a non-union small business owner, vandalized his car, "scab", and then shot owner. Mind you, despite being non-union he still payed good wages, and offered full benefits (he just happened to avoid the overhead/middle-man costs of paying dues to the Union itself). So best I can tell it doesn't sound like he was taking advantage of his workers, and actually cares for them.
Like the report says, depending on how you feel about union/non-union issue their was no reason things should have gone this far.
(Posted on: August 17, 2011, 10:50:59 PM)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/18/flashmobs.police/index.html
HMM.
This is a case of the media mislabeling these incidents. These are NOT flash mobs - they are social media organized, yes, but Flash Mobs are NOT VIOLENT or DESTRUCTIVE.
Bt
Languages evolve, in the end because media and politicians use the term "flash mob" or "flash rob" in this way, it will become one of the definitions for 'flash mob'. It may not have started out that way, but it will be the case when its all over. It's the history of linguistics... Historically media 'propaganda', has changed language, and this will be no exception.
Take for example the terms 'liberal' and 'conservatives'. They don't quite mean the same thing they did 200 years ago either! A 'classic liberal' is very different than a modern liberal, etc.
Even the term 'radical' has changed over time. The opposite of 'radical' was once 'reactionary'. But now it can apply to both ends of the spectrum.
Hell, even the word 'mob' originally had negative connotations, meaning 'groups coming together for riots and destruction', the lower class/rabble, or gang/criminals. Whereas you are trying to apply 'positive' connotations to the word. Thus an 'evolution' of linguistical use! ...or an oxymoronic evolution of the term 'mob'!
Quote
1mob
noun \ˈmäb\
1
: a large or disorderly crowd; especially: one bent on riotous or destructive action
2
: the lower classes of a community : masses, rabble
3
chiefly Australian: a flock, drove, or herd of animals
4
: a criminal set : gang; especiallyoften capitalized: mafia 1
5
chiefly British: a group of people : crowd
There is an associated term, "smart mob" which is actually slightly oxymoronic, since mob is usually defined as "mindless"!
Even webster's dictionary neither applies positive or negative traits to a 'flash mob'.
QuoteFlash Mob
:a group of people summoned (as by e-mail or text message) to a designated location at a specified time to perform an indicated action before dispersing
The word 'flash' itself, originates from 'quick' coming together quickly. It was neither a 'positive or negative' term.
Crowds vs. Mobs vs. Riots (http://books.google.com/books?id=pBONJXoZ4fIC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=mob+is+a+negative+term&source=bl&ots=Z_WnCHZm06&sig=5VIgzUfGS6j1uwEK_y8pocKq0GU&hl=en&ei=bu1PTvLMN-TZiALrs92DAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mob%20is%20a%20negative%20term&f=false), a mob generally has negative connotations, and a crowd is neutral. A crowd can turn into a mob. Mobs generally are specified by 'shared emotion or thought' (these aren't always violent or negative, and maybe include a sense of 'fun'). Mobs can turn into riots.
Nope. Cite all the references you want. To call a violent mob a "flash mob" is lazy linguistics and journalism. I'm sure the creators of the phenomenon would hate to have their invention that was created to inspire fun and wonder used to identify acts of violence.
Bt
Flash mob had a different definition back in the 1800's;
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKXLE-A1VLhd0DfYvnLuLSfLpnf3o7SsZl1mRWd2MFhT23-nJksQ)
The image itself is actually modern, mimicing earlier style, but refers back to an earlier use of the term apparently
http://boingboing.net/2006/07/09/use-of-term-flash-mo.html
Quote from: Baggins on August 20, 2011, 12:35:15 PM
Flash mob had a different definition back in the 1800's;
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKXLE-A1VLhd0DfYvnLuLSfLpnf3o7SsZl1mRWd2MFhT23-nJksQ)
What are they doing? o_O
It's a drawing of a women's prison in Tasmania, they are flashing the guards/magistrate in protest as far as I know.
http://www.femaleconvicts.org.au/
This is hilarious, well actually its sobering (how a peaceful flash mob could turn into a violent riot);
http://boingboing.net/2010/12/04/fictional-story-of-a.html
His prediction is pretty spot on.
(Posted on: August 20, 2011, 04:05:36 PM)
So interesting a rapper named Machine Gun Kelly got arrested for trying to start a 'flash mob'.
http://twitter.com/#!/MACHINEGUNKELLY
Doesn't look like he did anything 'violent'. But they got him for disorderly conduct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/machine-gun-kelly-arrested_n_932390.html
http://ca.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idCATRE77K1WQ20110821
Seems like the police are a bit wary, after those other 'flash mobs'/robs.
Actually it looks like 'flash mobs' even the non-violent ones aren't always liked by the police when they disrupt public places;
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/601862/jefferson_memorial__flash_mob_arrested_for_dancing,_protesting_court_ruling_(video)/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/tweet-by-rapper-the-game-spawns-hundreds-of-calls-to-compton-sheriffs-station.html
Again, the media being misleading and stirring up controversy in order to increase readership. If you read the article, the guy was arrested for standing on a table at a mall, and refusing to get down when the police asked him to.
Again, total mis-use of the phrase.
Bt
Actually it was the Rapper who called it that on his twitter account. He was trying to call all his fans together to a "flash mob" dance off or some such. I actually put the link up above.
Quote
@machinegunkellyMachine Gun Kelly
ok so lets do a flashmob then, f*** it! yall wanna do one at somewhere out the way, like Mentor mall in the foodcourt? but what should we DO
Quote
@machinegunkellyMachine Gun Kelly
looks like Strongsville won. So Flashmob tomorrow at SouthPark Mall in Strongsvill at 5pm. everyone wear a funny disguise.
Quote
@machinegunkellyMachine Gun Kelly
yes! a flash mob crowd surf! lets do it tomorrow at Mentor mall, what time yall think? and how should we start it? a slow clap?
Quote@machinegunkellyMachine Gun Kelly
Today we flash mob NO MATTER WHAT! 5pm at SouthPark mall in the foodcourt, wear disguises, dont move to you hear 'Cleveland' play then RAGE!
QuotemachinegunkellyMachine Gun Kelly
If we get arrested for attempting a flash mob, just know we did it like #powerRAGERS. Costume swag!! #LTFU http://t.co/9O07Lrg
Cleveland actually has been trying to pass an anti 'flash mob' ban law. So apparently he knew he probably would be arrested (see last twitter message that occured just before his 'flashmob').
In other words he defied Cleveland law enforcement for basically a publicity stunt! He got the reaction he wanted.