Scylla Rhiadra

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.

Oh! The robe peignoir thing is gorgeous! Where is it from????

Which would be the first time anyone ever saw us together at the same time, in the same room! Hmmmm. Suspicious . . . !

Number 3 in my ongoing series, "Scylla Attempts to Master the Portrait." This one is a picture of Kotelle me on the comfortable side of the window in a winter scene, enjoying the warmth. Also, new hat/hair from #Foxy, with thanks to @Zeta Vandyke, who put me on to the store!

Kotelle and I are distantly related. She belongs to the elegant, successful, and attractive Nordic branch of the family. I belong to the turnip-growing, peasant farmer English branch. . . you know, the relatives everyone conveniently "forgets" to invite to the family reunion . . .

Magnificent. Terrifying. A thrilling ride from start to finish: you won't be able to leave your seat! Two punctured butt cheeks way way up! (Where did you get that HAIR???)

Oooh. That's very good! I'm going to steal that!!!

It's about power, no? It's why I still get hit on by men who have clearly read my profile, despite stating very clearly there that I'm not interested in SL relationships or sex. In fact, I have come to think that saying that makes it more likely that they'll hit on me. Conventionally, we tend to say that some men see a statement of limits as a "challenge," and I'm sure that's partially true. But mostly it's surely about trying to assume a position of dominance and power.

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.

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!

I completely agree -- which is part of why I was somewhat concerned about the apparently uncritical use of "normies" as a means of dividing the population neatly and reductively into halves. The tendency of the left to engage in this kind of dismissive "lump 'em all in the same basket" approach is, as I suspect you know, a central point of Angela Nagle's book Kill All Normies. It's also why Dale Beran's otherwise worthwhile piece on the role of 4chan in the rise of Trumpism received a fair amount of criticism: he tends to argue for a single direct line of descent, and papers over the variants and diversity. No one who has any familiarity with, for instance, the many faces and ideologies of hactivism should make that kind of mistake. A parallel is the whole "basket of deplorables" thing: it's really unhelpful to paint a complicated scene with a very very broad brush. If we're to address the variety of causes and expressions of these particular cultures, we need an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the kinds of range of view that you describe.

I am entirely willing to believe that you didn't use the term with a pejorative intent. Unfortunately, that's not the way that language works, and I don't think there is any doubt that the term is used, overwhelmingly, as an insult. What's more worrisome, maybe, is that, because of its origins, its use tends naturally to identify the user with an admittedly complicated bundle of attitudes and assumptions that include some of the most ugly corners of the internet. I am absolutely sure that was not your intention, but its a sort of inescapable consequence. I can't imagine using it without framing it very clearly in quotation marks. Someone above said something like this, I think. Or maybe it was another thread. 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. Thanks for your response!

This is a really interesting perspective, but you break it down into a simple binary between "normies" (a term that is a very clear pejorative) and what you call "those well-versed in internet culture." The word "normies" implies that you mean by the latter the culture of 4chan, Something Awful, the Alt-Right, certain corners of Reddit, etc. (I think I'd also like to suggest that there is more than one kind of "internet culture," and that the elements that spawned the term "normie" are just one part of a much more diverse picture?) Serious question: has not a great deal of the most vociferous hatred towards furries come precisely from that part of "internet culture"? Am I wrong in thinking that an awful lot of those most likely to employ the insult "normies" are also those most likely attack furries?

Hello Squirrel! (Another attempt to get this "portrait" thing down! Given that I'm snowed in at work by a blizzard, the subject matter seemed appropriate!)

Awwww! This is absolutely adorab . . . Oh. Wait . . .

Don't worry about "trying": you are totally succeeding. These are great shots! And your avatar is really adorable (in a sort of, "I-wouldn't-want-to-mess-with-her" way).

Ok, so maybe it wasn't such a good idea to drop those moisturizer packets into my purse.

So, it's been a while since I did a portrait/head shot, and I thought maybe I should focus on getting back to some basics that I've never actually entirely mastered. This is ok, I think, but I still honestly don't really know what I'm doing with these.

Clever you! I've used this essential technique for "adding myself" to a picture -- which is to say, employing myself sort of like an alt as an "extra" in a picture -- but it hadn't occurred to me to use it to fix clipping in clothes!

"How could Wodewick be such an awful beast? And I had the most wonderful dwess alweady picked out! Mumsy is going to be so vewy disappointed. And Poppa is going to be fuwious!" "Oh well twa la la, twa la la! Whateveh shall I weah to the Duchess's tomowow night?"

Maddy's been flouncing since the day she first posted.

i can't agree. A really award-winning flounce is sort of awe-inspiring and possessed of a certain kind of dramatic flair and elegance. Phil's just has me drumming my fingers on the desk. Waiting. And waiting. Although I would like to see him in that dress. (Although, I'll actually miss Phil. He's been a consistent presence on the forums for my entire time here. He's a fixture, sort of like that weird background buzzing you sometimes get in your ears.)

Yes, exactly. The toxicity ca. 2010-2012 was lethal. I had details about my personal life in SL being tossed around in posts here, and gossiped about on third party web sites. It was pretty horrible. The ideal, of course, is a middle ground, with sufficiently strong and engaged moderation to ensure that actual trolling and flaming are discouraged, but with a greater license for real and legitimate critical discussion and fruitful (and fun) derails. The problem is that that would require a greater expenditure of resources on moderation here than is, I suspect, currently the case. And, of course, it would also necessitate more transparent and engaged moderation. In the old days, as I recall, one got actual, personalized DMs from mods about pulled threads and posts, and not just boilerplate emails that frequently make no real sense in the context of the pulled post. Another option would be to go back to resident mods, although we'd need mechanisms to ensure that the moderation was not being controlled by particular cliques. None of that is going to happen, though. More specifically . . . I've thought the same thing, and been equally puzzled, since at least 2014, which was the last time (previous to this last half year) that I was active here. Part of it might be the interface? But surely the biggest thing that has changed is the moderation. ETA: I have, I have to say, some sympathy for the mods. Pulling forum duty must be about as popular as lunch room monitor is for elementary school teachers!

What sort of a body are you wearing, Eanna? The initial OP was about a system avatar; I'm pretty sure physics works differently for mesh bodies. Of you're wearing a mesh body, what make and type? (For my Slink body, jiggle is produced by a separate attachment, for instance.)

It sounds as though maybe I just need to call her "cute" often enough, and she'll be begging for mercy in no time.