Cultural diferences between humans and furries (and others) in SL

[Madelaine McMasters]

50 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Anyway, for whatever reason, online discussions just tend to encourage the articulation of extreme positions, and turn into flame wars more quickly. I've never really read a convincing analysis of why that should be.

Does this need a convincing analysis? Anonymity and transience? You can behave poorly online without suffering consequences. You don't have to crawl into bed tonight with the person you just dissed, nor do you have to invite them to your house for a holiday party. You raise holy hell in one forum and a moment later be the darling of another.

Now it's up to you to wonder what I'm like in that other forum.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Madelaine McMasters

[Syo Emerald]

I feel like human clubs tend to lean more towards mainstream, than furry clubs, in all kinds of way. Some aesthetics that are commonly found in human clubs, are much rarer or almost absent in furry clubs. One thing that I also noticed: You see a lot more openly gay avatars in furry clubs.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Now it's up to you to wonder what I'm like in that other forum.

If you’re a devil here..

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Madelaine McMasters said:

Does this need a convincing analysis? Anonymity and transience? You can behave poorly online without suffering consequences. You don't have to crawl into bed tonight with the person you just dissed, nor do you have to invite them to your house for a holiday party. You raise holy hell in one forum and a moment later be the darling of another.

Now it's up to you to wonder what I'm like in that other forum.

Well, maybe I like to complicate things! And unless it's got a fancy-smanshy academic term associated with it, it can't possibly be accurate? Right? Amirite?

Of course what you say is true . . . but the fact is that, despite your tongue-in-cheek(?) comment about your persona elsewhere, not everyone responds to the lure of anonymity and transience the way that you describe. You don't. I like to think that I don't. Most people on this forum don't. And I think it has something to do, obviously, with the personalities involved, but also with how we understand identity in an online context. My online persona, here ("Scylla") and elsewhere, is meaningful and important to me, and my reputation matters, even if it is not associated with RL me. So, when is that true, and when isn't it?

Anyway, I'm working on an incomprehensible and overly-complicated bit of scholarly jargon to describe this: I'll get back to you soon!

[Madelaine McMasters]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, maybe I like to complicate things! And unless it's got a fancy-smanshy academic term associated with it, it can't possibly be accurate? Right? Amirite?

Of course what you say is true . . . but the fact is that, despite your tongue-in-cheek(?) comment about your persona elsewhere, not everyone responds to the lure of anonymity and transience the way that you describe. You don't. I like to think that I don't. Most people on this forum don't. And I think it has something to do, obviously, with the personalities involved, but also with how we understand identity in an online context. My online persona, here ("Scylla") and elsewhere, is meaningful and important to me, and my reputation matters, even if it is not associated with RL me. So, when is that true, and when isn't it?

Anyway, I'm working on an incomprehensible and overly-complicated bit of scholarly jargon to describe this: I'll get back to you soon!

Right, not everybody behaves as I described. Not everybody has to. Long before the internet, companies with customer service departments learned what 10% of their customers think. That's why nobody wanted a job in customer service.

(You over-complicate, I'll over-simplify.)

Edited February 14, 2019 by Madelaine McMasters

[Love Zhaoying]

13 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

You over-complicate, I'll over-simplify.

Poeple r dum!

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

My online persona, here ("Scylla") and elsewhere, is meaningful and important to me, and my reputation matters, even if it is not associated with RL me.

Yeah... No. That's not how it works with me. The nickname may change but the person behind it is still the same. Online reps are as much a part of us as our lungs are. If you are a certain way online, as far as I am concerned, you are the same in RL. Much as people try to separate RL from online, it is not possible, unless you can change who you fundamentally are. There hasn't been a human born on this planet that can do that. I doubt there ever will be.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

Yeah... No. That's not how it works with me. The nickname may change but the person behind it is still the same. Online reps are as much a part of us as our lungs are. If you are a certain way online, as far as I am concerned, you are the same in RL. Much as people try to separate RL from online, it is not possible, unless you can change who you fundamentally are. There hasn't been a human born on this planet that can do that. I doubt there ever will be.

Oh, I actually agree with you . . . with some caveats. When I said my "online persona," I wasn't suggesting that "Scylla" is fundamentally different from RL me. On the contrary, there's probably too much of "RL me" on display here sometimes! I think that the kind of division you describe is more in line with what Maddy was suggesting: that having "disposable" online identities makes one feel as though one can get away with stuff. For those of us for whom online reputation, community, and so forth matters, it's the link between who I am here, and who the typist is, that makes the difference.

I really think -- and this is why this whole conversation is actually on topic -- that, however odd it might see, we invest something of ourselves in any role we play online, including that of furry. Clearly, one is not an anthropomorphic fox, or whatever, in RL. But there is something about that identity that is genuine and authentic to the person assuming that role.

And that's also why I think Maddy is wrong, in some ways (although I'll concede that there is going to be variance in the degree to which people treat their online personas as "real"). The most effective and coherent troll we have ever had in these forums was someone for whom online reputation mattered intensely. He wasn't a destructive a*****e because he was anonymous and transient: he was that way because it was the particular way he chose to build an identity (and a very strong and recognizable one) for himself.

[Selene Gregoire]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I wasn't suggesting that "Scylla" is fundamentally different from RL me.

Neither was I. 

It's not just the disposable personas, these guys are like this all the time. They believe they can get away with it because they have been allowed to get away with it for millennia.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

You over-complicate, I'll over-simplify.

Poeple r dum!

Maybe we're not dumb...maybe we're just tryin to 'fix things'. 

I remember some Psychological studies from some time back (not willing to try and find them again but maybe somebody can) that showed humans in general are simply more attuned to negative stimuli. This is a protective mechanism so that we can learn and fix what is wrong -- to grow then into something better or more adaptive to the environment (evolution).
Have you ever noticed on a forum that someone could post a long speech of the most positive, wonderful sentiments but somebody will come along and only comment on the one or two negative ones (or the ones they don't like or agree with). 
Human nature

But there IS hope -- one can train themselves to pay more attention to the positive and ignore the negative.

* I don't know much about current theories on evolution -- some would probably place the focus is on 'what works' , and so the focus would be to pay attention to the positive.  But, can you know what's right if you don't see what's not working?  Interesting question....and maybe more apropos for complex human consciousness than early evolution..

Edited February 14, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

All I have to say is, Dog Bless the Forum Mods!

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

All I have to say is, Dog Bless the Forum Mods!

lol yes, and here's one solution to focusing on the positive:

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Madelaine McMasters]

47 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And that's also why I think Maddy is wrong, in some ways (although I'll concede that there is going to be variance in the degree to which people treat their online personas as "real"). The most effective and coherent troll we have ever had in these forums was someone for whom online reputation mattered intensely. He wasn't a destructive a*****e because he was anonymous and transient: he was that way because it was the particular way he chose to build an identity (and a very strong and recognizable one) for himself.

This wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Yes, there is variance, greater here than in RL because it's easier. The troll in question was anonymous. We knew his forum persona, but not his RL identity. I have no reason to think he couldn't have created other personas with different reputations elsewhere, and hearsay suggested he did. He also represented, I think, the tip of an iceberg of lesser participants who lived vicariously through him. I suspect you and I could sit across a table from him in a RL pub and never draw the connection to the troll we saw here. It would be much harder for him to have two different RL personas in two different pubs in town, yet "leading a double life" does happen, and precedes the internet by millennia. People have been wary of "transients" for just as long. He's gone from SL but I suspect still in RL. Clearly one instance of him was more transient than the other.

When a good friend invites you do dinner and serves an awful main course, what do you say?
If that same friend takes you out to dinner and you are served an awful main course, what do you say?
If you're out to dinner alone and are served an awful main course, what do you say?
When you return home, what do you say on Yelp?

Each of us will span a different range of responses. Someone might be polite across the board, someone else might go ballistic on Yelp. I doubt though, that you'd find someone who's civil on Yelp and ballistic a the friend's dinner party. That's anonymity and transience at work.

[Luna Bliss]

23 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

That's anonymity and transience at work.

I'd say that's fear of  both disapproval and unwanted consequences at work.

Anonymity may play a part, but it's not the root cause of this trolling problem or the negativity we see on the net in general.

* Just because a factor occurs in many instances does not mean it's the cause, nor does it mean it would occur in other instances.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I'd say that's fear of  both disapproval and unwanted consequences at work.

Anonymity may play a part, but it's not the root cause of this trolling problem or the negativity we see on the net in general.

The anonymity is what allows you to evade disapproval and unwanted consequences. Years ago some newspapers, hoping to stem the massive abuse in their comments sections, restricted access to paid subscribers, and used their RL identities. Things went civil very quickly.

[Selene Gregoire]

Just for reasons.

19 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

When a good friend invites you do dinner and serves an awful main course, what do you say?

Ask for the recipe and then discuss ways to improve on it. It's proven to be the best way to offer constructive criticism without criticizing.

22 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

If that same friend takes you out to dinner and you are served an awful main course, what do you say?

Ask them what they think first, then let the waiter/waitress know the dish was lacking, again offering constructive criticism without criticizing.

23 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

If you're out to dinner alone and are served an awful main course, what do you say?

See above.

 

24 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

When you return home, what do you say on Yelp?

Nothing. I don't use Yelp or any of those sites.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'd say that's fear of  both disapproval and unwanted consequences at work.

Anonymity may play a part, but it's not the root cause of this trolling problem or the negativity we see on the net in general.

The anonymity is what allows you to evade disapproval and unwanted consequences. Years ago some newspapers, hoping to stem the massive abuse in their comments sections, restricted access to paid subscribers, and used their RL identities. Things went civil very quickly.

Well, then what explanation or cause do we give to those who are anonymous yet exhibit civil and generally positive behavior on the internet?

[Madelaine McMasters]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, then what explanation or cause do we give to those who are anonymous yet exhibit civil and generally positive behavior on the internet?

People's ability to self govern (and be empathetic) is variable. Those who do it best are civil everywhere. Those who do it worst are likely to become more uncivil as societal constraints are lifted. Anonymity removes a lot of constraints.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

22 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Just for reasons.

Ask for the recipe and then discuss ways to improve on it. It's proven to be the best way to offer constructive criticism without criticizing.

Ask them what they think first, then let the waiter/waitress know the dish was lacking, again offering constructive criticism without criticizing.

See above.

 

Nothing. I don't use Yelp or any of those sites.

I was using the royal "you".

I don't use Yelp either, but in all four cases, I'd stick to the "if you can't say something nice" mantra of my youth. My life experience so far says that the rest of the world behaves increasingly poorly as you move down the list. Yelp has safeguards in place to prevent rants. I don't recall such safeguards at Thanksgiving dinner at my neighbors. They weren't needed.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Madelaine McMasters

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, then what explanation or cause do we give to those who are anonymous yet exhibit civil and generally positive behavior on the internet?

People's ability to self govern (and be empathetic) is variable. Those who do it best are civil everywhere. Those who do it worst are likely to become more uncivil as societal constraints are lifted. Anonymity removes a lot of constraints.

Written words cause a focusing effect, if you're paying attention - an intensification of energy.
Unfortunately, we are wired to be aware of what's wrong in our environment more than what's right -- as a protection.
Hence, the internet becomes more negative than other social habitats outside of the internet.

Not saying anonymity cannot be a part of the above and "remove some constraints" as you say -- I'm sure it factors in to a degree, or for some people -- but I don't think it's the root cause.

* And I'm referring to average people in this theory, and not to those with major mental illnesses or personality disorders.

[Selene Gregoire]

11 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I was using the royal "you".

I got that.

11 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I don't use Yelp either, but in all four cases, I'd stick to the "if you can't say something nice" mantra of my youth. My life experience so far says that the rest of the world behaves increasingly poorly as you move down the list. Yelp has safeguards in place to prevent rants. I don't recall such safeguards at Thanksgiving dinner at my neighbors. They weren't needed.

Same. I just found a way to be able to say something and make it nice without the other person realizing the food has been criticized.

The world behaving increasingly poorly is directly tied to the population increase. It's the same reason other stats increase over time rather than decrease. 

Frankly, there are far too many humans on the planet and there is no humane solution.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

6 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 Anyway, for whatever reason, online discussions just tend to encourage the articulation of extreme positions, and turn into flame wars more quickly. I've never really read a convincing analysis of why that should be.

We supposedly pay more attention to negative stimulus and it can evoke the good old fashioned survival mechanism from humanity's rougher days, the fight or flight response. But flight's an incomplete option on the internet - we can turn the computer off but the discussion continues without us (oh noes!), or we worry that it will, or we keep arguing in our minds. Unless you've learned how to truly step back or walk away from it altogether, fighting at least appears to address the negative stimulus. Of course it tends to magnify and prolong it. But it all gives off brain chemicals with addictive properties, which makes for quite a feedback loop.

Especially difficult for walking away from things on the internet is that the argument will still be there to be dredged up again if it suits. In person, it's just easier to get over it and move on.

And to see the "opponent" as more than the monster you've created in your head in the heat of the argument.

That's not the whole picture of course, but important pieces (IMO) to add in. Anonymity is part too, but I feel it's too simplistic to make it the primary focus. If nothing else, there can be legitimate needs for some to remain anonymous (like certain jobs or relationship history) and given how much of our social business is being conducted online, we really do need to get a handle on ourselves soon.

[Love Zhaoying]

So, now y’all got me feeling sorry for the poor blighters! Not looking down on them, more in a compassionate sense (Daya in Sanskrit). Being who they are, with their life experiences, there is no reason to expect them to be different from who they are. Yay, I learnt sumpin’! Y’all are smart!

[alienaisha]

On 2/13/2019 at 12:19 AM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

The paranoia most often comes up in the form of "you're too short, you must be a child and I should report you before anybody else gets reported:"

The furry/anime community is much more accustomed to small and/or cute avatars, between 4-5 feet, even in a lewd context. Probably because it's further removed from real life and can be more easily justified (like small real life species for furries or not really resembling our idea of a real child).

Friends, we're talking about the overall trends and averages, of course there are exceptions and outliers but they don't disprove anything. 😋 (Never mind that there's a thousand ways to slice the pie and we're all talking about our own limited experiences, until someone links actual statistics which nobody's probably bothered to gather.)

Oooh I see, thank you. Yes I will keep that in mind when I make a realistic avi then. I try to make my avis reflect my real style...unfortunately as I mentioned I'm 22 but get mistaken for 15-17 a lot and while my characters are all presumed adults unless stated otherwise (for RP instance) I always maintain a youthful aesthetic because that's just what I like, how I enjoy dressing IRL. I think I'll add that to my bio.

 

Though it shouldn't matter because I do not like the nsfw/adult scene of SL anyways, hopefully I'll be good. Thank you for explaining!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

We supposedly pay more attention to negative stimulus and it can evoke the good old fashioned survival mechanism from humanity's rougher days, the fight or flight response. But flight's an incomplete option on the internet - we can turn the computer off but the discussion continues without us (oh noes!), or we worry that it will, or we keep arguing in our minds. Unless you've learned how to truly step back or walk away from it altogether, fighting at least appears to address the negative stimulus. Of course it tends to magnify and prolong it. But it all gives off brain chemicals with addictive properties, which makes for quite a feedback loop.

Especially difficult for walking away from things on the internet is that the argument will still be there to be dredged up again if it suits. In person, it's just easier to get over it and move on.

And to see the "opponent" as more than the monster you've created in your head in the heat of the argument.

That's not the whole picture of course, but important pieces (IMO) to add in. Anonymity is part too, but I feel it's too simplistic to make it the primary focus. If nothing else, there can be legitimate needs for some to remain anonymous (like certain jobs or relationship history) and given how much of our social business is being conducted online, we really do need to get a handle on ourselves soon.

I think that's probably a very good description of how and why the internet affects a lot of people who find themselves engaged here. And I agree that anonymity is only a part of it: it seems to me that social media has tended to wipe out what used to be a belief in the importance of keeping one's identity separate from one's online identity. On Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere, people now seem willing to say almost anything without bothering to hide who they are.

When I first started engaging in online discussions on forums and elsewhere, maybe 15 years ago, I had a sort of missionary zeal, and a belief that this was a medium where one might make a "difference," and change minds and attitudes. I am sure there were times when I argued to win, but mostly I think I wanted to convert, and my tenaciousness mostly derived from that fervour.

I've kind of lost that now. I still think that the internet can be a powerful place to communicate ideas, and learn things in turn from others, but I think I now realize that the percentage of people willing to actually listen and engage in a meaningful way -- rather than fighting for victory -- is actually pretty small. So, my own attitude now is governed by the degree to which it appears I can either learn something, or maybe teach something. Usually, I can tell after an exchange of maybe 2 or 3 posts with someone whether there is the potential for a real give-and-take, and whether they are willing to listen to what I have to offer or have insights from which I can learn. When it becomes clear that neither applies, the exercise seems to me pretty pointless nowadays, and I'll disengage pretty quickly. When arguing with someone particularly exhausting and aggressive, I sometimes won't even say goodbye: I'll just walk away.

Happily, I rarely take an ongoing online argument to bed with me these days.