To AR Is Human . . .

[Scylla Rhiadra]

17 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

A panelist on a NPR radio discussion this morning floated the proposition that the rise of social media has been largely to blame for increased polarization in society, especially in the Western World, simply because it is too democratic.  The initial promise of facebook and its lookalikes was that open discussion among people would give the "common man" (and presumably woman) a voice in shaping public policy. As the panelist noted, it has instead given those with the loudest voices at the extremes of any issue an outsized influence, thus effectively silencing the vast majority of people in the middle.

There is doubtless some truth to this, but I think it's a great deal more complicated. Social media has the potential to democratize, but as we now know, the platforms themselves (hello Facebook! hi Instagram!) use algorithms that effectively and deliberately amplify the angriest voices in order to increase the all-important metric of "engagement." And what's more, these platforms can be, and notoriously have been, "gamed" by bad actors using bots and deliberate disinformation.

The promise of social media is still there -- like SL, it can be an outlet for people who don't express themselves forcefully in RL to do so in some safety and comfort -- but it's been badly distorted, mostly purposefully.

17 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

This is not exactly a new proposition.  It strikes me that it has its parallel in SL and here in the forums. Those who complain do not necessarily represent the vast number of us who disagree silently, or who either don't notice or don't care about the issue.  Discussions of weighty issues here are inherently undemocratic because they potentially emphasize the voices of loudmouths.  That is much less true in world, where complaining is usually a one-on-one affair, but here in the forums it can lead to polarized posturing and a degree of self-censoring among the large number of quiet people in the middle. I think it also means that a small number of people filing abuse reports can have an outsized influence in shaping the way that moderators and the Governance team develop policy.

I worry a little about this view -- and some might say, with some justification, that that's because I'm one of the loudmouths.

There are other forms of self-censorship than being afraid to jump into a fray. I do self-censor here -- there was plenty of opportunity in a recently closed thread here to pontificate about right wing American politics, for instance, and while a few did weigh in, I decided not to because it was a bad derail, and probably ultimately annoying (and hence also counterproductive).

The flip side, though, is being worried that being perceived as "always political" or "always contentious" compels one to sit on one's hands when dis- or mis-information is spread, or something truly awful is said.

I suppose it might depend on what you mean by "loudmouth"? Does having a view and expressing it forcefully and reasonably frequently constitute that? Or do we mean people who are just trying to shout down others?

It's an issue that I am acutely aware of. I am not going to be silent when someone says something with which I disagree, because that's not "me," and, more to the point, because we can't have conversations about these things unless we speak up about them. On the other hand, I hope that my voice is not merely scratchy or annoying or strident, and that my tone invites rather than inhibits responses.

But maybe I'm not the best judge of that? Who is?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

that's because I'm one of the loudmouths.

Should we form a club?

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

there was plenty of opportunity in a recently closed thread here to pontificate about right wing American politics, for instance, and while a few did weigh in, I decided not to

Thank goodness, enough of that!

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The flip side, though, is being worried that being perceived as "always political" or "always contentious" compels one to sit one's hands when dis- or mis-information is spread, or something truly awful is said.

Agreed. Luckily, if history is any indicator on the forums at least, should one of "those people" say "those things", then someone will call them out, AR their posts, etc. etc.  It doesn't have to be me or thee.

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But maybe I'm not the best judge of that? Who is?

Around here, it appears to be the biggest loudmouths, or those most willing to..AR.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Around here, it appears to be the biggest loudmouths, or those most willing to..AR.

The "report" (see how carefully I'm being not to call it an "AR"??) on the forum might well, I suppose, be a tool employed by particularly combative "loudmouths" to silence opposition?

On the other hand, the worst loudmouths are sometimes trolls, and their aim is actually to evoke responses rather than stifle them. Although it's also true that one potential strategy (does anyone here do this, I wonder?) is to provoke someone into saying something that can then be reported.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

On the other hand, the worst loudmouths are sometimes trolls, and their aim is actually to evoke responses rather than stifle them. 

According to SOME..."I bet"..the abusive patriarchal system allows people to AR those poor, misled trolls who just need to be forgiven! 😉

("Are we in the Upside-Down yet?")

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Although it's also true that one potential strategy (does anyone here do this, I wonder?) is to provoke someone into saying something that can then be reported.

Yeah, they be that way. Arrrrr!!!! We need a "Trolls vs. Pirates!" movie or somesuch.

My skin is getting so thick, it will look nice as a rug.

 

[Rolig Loon]

30 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I suppose it might depend on what you mean by "loudmouth"? Does having a view and expressing it forcefully and reasonably frequently constitute that? Or do we mean people who are just trying to shout down others?

That's an extremely good question, one that I forced by using the loaded term "loudmouth".  The term has strong negative connotations because it denigrates loud people who have legitimate opinions, lumping them together with the jerks who are often arguing just to provoke a fight.  As you point out, it leads to self-censoring many of the people who ought to be debating. It makes them hold back for fear of being tarred as "loudmouths".  It's not an easy conundrum to wrestle with.  I will admit that I often find myself muttering silently at the posturing of a few people at the extremes of forum discussions, deciding not to add fuel to either end of the bonfire.  But that's really my basic point.  The nature of discussions here favors extremes and stifles more moderate voices. It also, I fear, may mean that behavior at the extremes gives them outsized influence in shaping what's allowed and forbidden.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Rolig Loon
typos. as always.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

one that I forced by using the loaded term "loudmouth".

"The open mouth gets fed." (And raises, and stuffs.)

If you're in charge, a great plan would be: Teach people to "be quiet" and not ask for stuff.

[Akane Nacht]

54 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Instead of furthering democracy, social media have fractured it. 

Recently I have noticed more scepticism from various authorities (and people in general) about the real value of stuff posted on social media. I'd like to think some of the shine has worn off things like twitter and fb, and more of us take what is posted by some random internet strangers with a few grains of salt. 

[Rolig Loon]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If you're in charge, a great plan would be: Teach people to "be quiet" and not ask for stuff.

No, I think that's the wrong message. The problem is that the wrong people end up being quiet. The challenge is to encourage reasoned debate and to exercise restraint and respect. That means somehow convincing participants to discuss rather than to react to each other and to avoid using provocative language that is likely to exaggerate emotions rather than advance a proposition.  The purpose of debating, after all, should be to persuade listeners to accept your proposition, not to intimidate them into stunned silence.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

The problem is that the wrong people end up being quiet. The challenge is to encourage reasoned debate and to exercise restraint and respect.

Highlighted for additional emphasis. Yes.

[Love Zhaoying]

50 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

The challenge is to encourage reasoned debate and to exercise restraint and respect.

In your opinion, is it OK if people call out logical fallacies in the arguments that are presented? 

I've seen a few do that, which was both very refreshing and informative. 

I do not know if it was helpful to the person whose argument was being responded to. (Sorry, that is awkward. I did not want to say "who had a potentially fallacious argument". But there, I said it anyway.)

[Love Zhaoying]

54 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If you're in charge, a great plan would be: Teach people to "be quiet" and not ask for stuff.

No, I think that's the wrong message.

I did not mean it "literally" as a good idea whatsover - just that it is to the benefit of those in charge, if others "keep quiet"!

[Persephone Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I did not mean it "literally" as a good idea whatsover - just that it is to the benefit of those in charge, if others "keep quiet"!

I knew you were using "good" in a facetious way to mean, good for those in power, but not necessary good for those not in power.

There is no such thing as "better for everyone". What is better for some, is always worse for someone else.

(^ Quote from The Handmaid's Tale, from Fred to Offred, season 1 or 2 I think)

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The flip side, though, is being worried that being perceived as "always political" or "always contentious" compels one to sit on one's hands when dis- or mis-information is spread, or something truly awful is said.

Do not sit on your hands and you can also be as beloved as I am on the forum.  😁

[Rolig Loon]

33 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

In your opinion, is it OK if people call out logical fallacies in the arguments that are presented? 

I've seen a few do that, which was both very refreshing and informative. 

I do not know if it was helpful to the person whose argument was being responded to. (Sorry, that is awkward. I did not want to say "who had a potentially fallacious argument". But there, I said it anyway.)

I think that's fine,  although i take exception to the term "call out", which sounds too much like "J'accuse!" for my taste. The idea is not to score points, but to call attention to a weakness in what was just said. It's about furthering the debate, not whapping the other guy. 

[Love Zhaoying]

28 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

There is no such thing as "better for everyone". What is better for some, is always worse for someone else.

(^ Quote from The Handmaid's Tale, from Fred to Offred, season 1 or 2 I think)

This is a shame, I do believe in compromise and collaborative, cooperative communities that work to ensure everybody's success.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I think that's fine,  although i take exception to the term "call out", which sounds too much like "J'accuse!" for my taste. The idea is not to score points, but to call attention to a weakness in what was just said. It's about furthering the debate, not whapping the other guy. 

How about, "Point out potential logical [etc., probably a nicer word than "fallacies" which means the same thing]"?

"Calling attention to" something is also a bit "finger-pointy". IMHO.

Just like "pointing something out". LOL! (because I used "point out"..)

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

43 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

There is no such thing as "better for everyone". What is better for some, is always worse for someone else.

(^ Quote from The Handmaid's Tale, from Fred to Offred, season 1 or 2 I think)

This is a shame, I do believe in compromise and collaborative, cooperative communities that work to ensure everybody's success.

Well, maybe it's okay if its worse for some other people. Like Jeff Bezos.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, maybe it's okay if its worse for some other people. Like Jeff Bezos.

I hope you can get past the "patriarchy" and focus on more modern evils, like oligarchies, etc. "Patriarchy" is so last century! Bezos and Musk are a start! 👍🏾

[Luna Bliss]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

29 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, maybe it's okay if its worse for some other people. Like Jeff Bezos.

I hope you can get past the "patriarchy" and focus on more modern evils, like oligarchies, etc. "Patriarchy" is so last century! Bezos and Musk are a start! 👍🏾

But the patriarchy is the oligarchy's evil mother! lol
In other words, it is the stratification inherent in patriarchy that places someone on top -- the oligarch.

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I knew you were using "good" in a facetious way to mean, good for those in power, but not necessary good for those not in power.

There is no such thing as "better for everyone". What is better for some, is always worse for someone else.

(^ Quote from The Handmaid's Tale, from Fred to Offred, season 1 or 2 I think)

31 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

This is a shame, I do believe in compromise and collaborative, cooperative communities that work to ensure everybody's success.

I agree that there is usually a middle ground at which there is the most good for most of those involved in a disagreement. Those in power tend to keep that line closer to their interests I think, even if it means hurting those who have less power, fewer resources, less freedom to speak freely, etc. 

I don't think it helps much to point our specific people as being "bad" or to use the idea of "eating the rich" (though I do like that concept as hyperbole). I believe we're all connected and ultimately interdependent on each other, so it makes sense to support policies that do the most good for the most people and most of our planet.

This would not be Communism despite the phrase that sounds like it's all about Communism. Historical evidence shows that Communism as a political system doesn't work. I think there needs to be some incentive for people to strive for more, but that goal shouldn't be hopelessly out of reach for the vast majority of people.

I don't think Democracy is 5 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner either. We're just all people trying to protect our own safety and comfort. 

[Persephone Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But the patriarchy is the oligarchy's evil mother! lol
In other words, it is the stratification inherent in patriarchy that places someone on top -- the oligarch.

If you're going to use gender-based metaphors, at least get your genders right.

How about "Greed is the mother of Oligarchy and Patriarchy is its father." ?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But the patriarchy is the oligarchy's evil mother! lol
In other words, it is the stratification inherent in patriarchy that places someone on top -- the oligarch.

If you're going to use gender-based metaphors, at least get your genders right.

How about "Greed is the mother of Oligarchy and Patriarchy is it's father." ?

Well, I kinda like that.  But the fact remains that as we examine the world men still hold more power.

However, when I am using the term I actually mean a stratified society where men typically hold more power. That's what we used in Women's Studies classes anyway.  I might consider not using it once women are actually equal to men.

[Persephone Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, I kinda like that.  But the fact remains that as we examine the world men still hold more power.

However, when I am using the term I actually mean a stratified society where men typically hold more power. That's what we used in Women's Studies classes anyway.  I might consider not using it once women are actually equal to men.

You know how in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Marc Antony keeps saying "Brutus is an honorable man"?  In this case he repeats and repeats this phrase until it seems meaningless to those listening to it.  I think if you keep referring to the evils of the Patriarchy, you risk doing the same thing. 

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, I kinda like that.  But the fact remains that as we examine the world men still hold more power.

However, when I am using the term I actually mean a stratified society where men typically hold more power. That's what we used in Women's Studies classes anyway.  I might consider not using it once women are actually equal to men.

Expand  

You know how in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Marc Antony keeps saying "Brutus is an honorable man"?  In this case he repeats and repeats this phrase until it seems meaningless to those listening to it.  I think if you keep referring to the evils of the Patriarchy, you risk doing the same thing. 

That could be, and I often contemplate whether I should use the term. There's not a concise word to describe it that I know of, but only something like "a stratified society where some have more power than others, with men typically having the greatest amount of power".

The most pushback I've gotten though is from men who don't want to be considered bad boys. Sometimes they won't even acknowledge they have more power in so many ways. So describing what is actually going on has actually been helpful in some cases, with those who do accede that men have more power.

Insult first, explain later!   j/k

[Persephone Emerald]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

That could be, and I often contemplate whether I should use the term. There's not a concise word to describe it that I know of, but only something like "a stratified society where some have more power than others, with men typically having the greatest amount of power".

The most pushback I've gotten though is from men who don't want to be considered bad boys. Sometimes they won't even acknowledge they have more power in so many ways. So describing what is actually going on has actually been helpful in some cases, with those who do accede that men have more power.

Insult first, explain later!   j/k

I like to use the term "those in power" because it's neutral to gender, race, and politics. I think we all know who's in power - white men with money and social privilege.