A Discussion: Being "Kind" when Responding in Second Life (and Forums)

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

In any case, it's certainly not a kind thing to do (the cliquish pile-on) and should be included in the OP's outline.

Interesting Idea, but the point of my thread is for an individual replying to another individual.

That's exactly what happens in a pile-on -- one individual responds to another individual and many other individuals also respond to that same individual. Each subsequent individual responder chooses to be unkind to the targeted individual, hiding under the umbrella of support he imagines his clique provides.

See this is why we have such trouble communicating -- you decide I'm off-topic whenever I describe greater complexity inherent in an issue, frequently calling it "psychological" or something when in reality it's just going deeper into the matter.

It's also 'interesting' that you take such issue with this and deem it off-topic, as this dynamic described above is what you've done repeatedly to me over many years.

Edited May 2 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

That's exactly what happens in a pile-on -- one individual responds to another individual and many other individuals also respond to that same individual. Each subsequent individual responder chooses to be unkind to the targeted individual, hiding under the umbrella of support he imagines his clique provides.

See this is why we have such trouble communicating -- you decide I'm off-topic whenever I describe greater complexity inherent in an issue, frequently calling it "psychological" or something when in reality it's just going deeper into the matter.

It's also 'interesting' that you take such issue with this and deem it off-topic, as this dynamic described above is what you've done repeatedly to me over many years.

Luna, may I gently say please, that I did not take any "issue" at all.

However, what I read into your suggestion - rightly so as I understand it - is that you are referring more to how "each person interacts" in the FIRST place.  I am only addressing how each person RESPONDS to an interaction.

So, in this case - it would be how I myself reply to others who "seem" to "pile on". 

It has nothing at all to do with how others address "me" in the first place.

My thread really is not about a) "be kinder to everyone".  It is about b) "be kind to others when responding to them".  If I understand correctly, multiple people interpreted the thread as being about a), since I saw several replies indicating they took issue with the suggestion of "being kind" in the FIRST place.

So again, I have no problem with what you suggested, and am not saying you are "off topic" - I am merely saying that I do not want to try and address how people interact (including groups, as in a "pile-on").  I just want to address how individuals - such as you, or I - COULD respond to others in a kind manner, when those others were not kind in the first place.

I hope this helps!

Thanks again for your patience and understanding.

 

 

 

Edited May 2 by Love Zhaoying
Re-wording for clarification

[Jaylinbridges]

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Luna, may I gently say please, that I did not take any "issue" at all.

However, what I read into your suggestion - rightly so as I understand it - is that you are referring more to how "each person interacts" in the FIRST place.  I am only addressing you each person RESPONDS to an interaction.

So, in this case - it would be how I myself reply to others who "seem" to "pile on". 

It has nothing at all to do with how others address "me" in the first place.

My thread really is not about a) "be kinder to everyone".  It is about a) "be kind to others when responding to them".  If I understand correctly, multiple people interpreted the thread as being about a), since I saw several replies indicating they were upset by the suggestion of "being kind" in the FIRST place.

So again, I have no problem with what you suggested, and am not saying you are "off topic" - I am merely saying that I do not want to try and address how people interact (including groups, as in a "pile-on").  I just want to address you an individual - such as you, or I - respond to others in a kind manner, when those others were not kind in the first place.

I hope this helps!

Thanks again for your patience and understanding.

If you RESPOND to someone in hopes of instigating a pile-on (as I've seen you do many times), most likely you are responding to said individual BECAUSE you feel offended by what they said. Perhaps there's a better way to respond to an individual you feel offended by, rather than instigating a pile-on?  What I'm saying is that obfuscating facts and goading someone in hopes to gather others in your quest is not an appropriate response.

[Love Zhaoying]

I thought of a way to put this that some people will like, and some people will not like.

If we each "take personal responsibility" for how we reply to OTHERS, then in the context of my post (REPLYING), then there will be no "pile-ons".  (Unless of course, somehow a group of random people start SENDING unkind messages, which is beyond the scope of REPLYING.)

Also, just a quick note that I tried VERY hard, by giving several examples, to include Second Life itself and not just the Forum.  It would be helpful if anyone else contributed with examples of their own. (Examples that are not about "me".)

 

 

Edited May 2 by Love Zhaoying

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

it's certainly not a kind thing to do (the cliquish pile-on)

While it is definitely not nice to pile on someone due to cliquish reasons, just because multiple people in a thread have the same opinion and tell someone else that opinion, does not automatically make it a cliquish thing.

When I'm right, lots of people agree with me.  So maybe sometimes we all tell people the same things.

Edited May 2 by LittleMe Jewell

[LittleMe Jewell]

52 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Interesting Idea, but the point of my thread is for an individual replying to another individual.

#1 - You should know that "the point" of a thread is interpretive and cannot always be completely defined by the OP.

#2 - Even when things are cliquish -- or even if just appear to be -- they are still all "individual replies to another individual"

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

While it is definitely not nice to pile on someone due to cliquish reasons, just because multiple people in a thread have the same opinion and tell someone else that opinion, does not automatically make it a cliquish thing.

When I'm right, lots of people agree with me.  So maybe sometimes we all tell people the same things.

That is interesting, how words such as "clique" and even "cartel" are generally seen in a negative light. While, "group" and "company", etc. are not.

Edited May 3 by Love Zhaoying
Punctuation

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

it's certainly not a kind thing to do (the cliquish pile-on)

While it is definitely not nice to pile on someone due to cliquish reasons, just because multiple people in a thread have the same opinion and tell someone else that opinion, does not automatically make it a cliquish thing.

When I'm right, lots of people agree with me.  So maybe sometimes we all tell people the same things.

Total agreement, LittleMe -- sometimes many people in a thread simply agree and have a difference of opinion regarding what a poster said.

However, when you witness, over many years, how certain individuals aren't consistent in their opinion on certain issues, and they change according to who they're responding to, then I suspect clique behavior or at the very least a grudge that causes them to have distorted impressions.

There are other ways to evaluate this as well.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

#1 - You should know that "the point" of a thread is interpretive and cannot always be completely defined by the OP.

#2 - Even when things are cliquish -- or even if just appear to be -- they are still all "individual replies to another individual"

#1 - Yep! My reply was specific because Luna asked me to "amend" my OP topic. Anyone can discuss anything, but the OP gets to decide what the OP says.

#2 - Nice, I hadn't looked at it way but sure.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

That is interesting, how words such as "clique" and even "cartel" are generally seen in a negative light. While, "group" and "company", etc. are not,

A 'clique' or 'cartel' generally uses their power (greater power in numbers) to control others, whereas 'group' or 'company' doesn't embody that connotation automatically.

[Love Zhaoying]

Hesitated to say, I was taught that "It's not about other people. It's about YOU, and how you respond". The world is always changing, and the only thing you can ultimately control is how you react to those changes.

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

A 'clique' or 'cartel' generally uses their power (greater power in numbers) to control others, whereas 'group' or 'company' doesn't embody that connotation automatically.

You've apparently not worked for some of the "companies" that I have.

[Wincil]

I think it's definitely not nice to pile on someone due to cliquish reasons and is not what being kind is. It wouldn't be fair to join other people in criticizing something or someone in an unfair way.

Edited May 3 by Wincil

[Arielle Popstar]

11 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

#1 - You should know that "the point" of a thread is interpretive and cannot always be completely defined by the OP.

#2 - Even when things are cliquish -- or even if just appear to be -- they are still all "individual replies to another individual"

But a post with more positive responses tends to carry more weight all other things being equal.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

A 'clique' or 'cartel' generally uses their power (greater power in numbers) to control others, whereas 'group' or 'company' doesn't embody that connotation automatically.

You've apparently not worked for some of the "companies" that I have.

lol well that's why I added the "automatically".

[Codex Alpha]

47 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If you RESPOND to someone in hopes of instigating a pile-on (as I've seen you do many times), most likely you are responding to said individual BECAUSE you feel offended by what they said. Perhaps there's a better way to respond to an individual you feel offended by, rather than instigating a pile-on?  What I'm saying is that obfuscating facts and goading someone in hopes to gather others in your quest is not an appropriate response.

If I were to describe my experience on SL forums would be quite simple "They dog pile on you", because it's accurate.

[Love Zhaoying]

44 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

You've apparently not worked for some of the "companies" that I have.

True dat, * knock on wood * I've had the same job for 26 years.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

36 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

If I were to describe my experience on SL forums would be quite simple "They dog pile on you", because it's accurate.

I remember some of those times!

[Luna Bliss]

38 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

If I were to describe my experience on SL forums would be quite simple "They dog pile on you", because it's accurate.

To the OP's question -- how do we respond in a kinder way to those we disagree with?

Well, we can't if we're in a clique, because our reality is distorted, and our objective is to remain united with the clique over alignment with the clearer perception that comes from thinking deeply and utilizing our own mind.  Thinking is hard work. People deep into a clique really can't see their perception is distorted, and even believe the entire rest of whatever group they're in (be it in SL or the forum) is right and representative of the group they are actually only a small part of.

We also have a need, in a clique, to 'get' others outside our group -- it helps unite us, forges a bond. You can often see the clique celebrate after they feel they've won a victory, taken someone down.

Humankind is a mess -- we need approval and acceptance from others, but we also need our individuality.  In the clique mentality we see a terrible imbalance where group-think prevails.

Edited May 3 by Luna Bliss

[Zalificent Corvinus]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I remember some of those times!

So do I, and frankly, in that 35+ page thread demanding peoples mainland parcels be bulldozed if not run as public amusement parks, the alleged "dog pile" was well deserved, and NOT a clique dog pile, but simply a lot of angry individuals all angry with the same poster.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

Reminder that in the OP, I list for several cases that there is always the option of "not responding at all" (and in fact, not reading a post at all in the case of the Forums).

In Second Life however, "not reading" someone's messages can be a little more difficult (I suppose, unless your "message capacity" is exceeded).  I wonder how you would accomplish that without "blocking" someone?  You can't select that an individual's messages get ignored / discarded / go to email, etc. can you?

 

Edited May 3 by Love Zhaoying
Reworded for clarification

[Luna Bliss]

20 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

So do I, and frankly, in that 35+ page thread demanding peoples mainland parcels be bulldozed if not run as public amusement parks, the alleged "dog pile" was well deserved, and NOT a clique dog pile, but simply a lot of angry individuals all angry with the same poster.

 

I hope you responded to the poster with all the kindness and love residing in the deepest recesses of your heart.

[LittleMe Jewell]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Reminder that in the OP, I list for several cases that there is always the option of "not responding at all" (and in fact, not reading a post at all in the case of the Forums).

For the past many months I have been avoiding almost all threads that could be "contentious", mostly because I just got tired of all of the drama.  Let me tell you that it drastically reduces forum time.

However, if someone is being a troll, or an obvious idiot, or is just plain wrong, I'm not going to just "not respond" or "play nice" just so I don't hurt feelings.  I'll "not respond" only if I'm not interested in really getting involved in the thread. Otherwise, I'll call it like I see it, and I will typically be quite blunt about it.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Humankind is a mess -- we need approval and acceptance from others, but we also need our individuality.  In the clique mentality we see a terrible imbalance where group-think prevails.

Humans are inherently "social animals" and so instinctively crave a sense of acceptance and belonging since the alternative, rejection and ostracization, tends to invoke a sense of vulnerability and isolation.

I think part of the problem with modern day humans is that while we are primarily ruled by our conscious intellect we are still prone to acting on instinct and in many cases aren't even aware that we are doing so and, rather than using our intellect to override our instinctive urges and respond in a more reasonable and measured way, will instead respond instinctively and then attempt to use our intellect to justify our actions to others (and ourselves).

The irony of cliques and "group think" is that while being part of a group provides a sense of security and can lead people to feel braver and more confident in speaking out, the truth is that only speaking out in defense of your beliefs when you know that your opinion will be popular and well received is one of the most cowardly things an individual can do.