This is Not Fun Anymore - An Attempt at a Neutral Commentary for the Silent · 7:52pm Jul 3rd, 2020
"There's been a lot going on," says Captain Obvious. But the funny thing is that in the sphere of 2020, that statement could mean so very much depending on the person reading it.
The act of deriving meaning from a sentence means taking the words at the face value, digesting it in your brain, and deriving meaning from the words based on your experience. So, when someone says "There's been a lot going on." it could come out to someone thinking about their social isolation that is making them feel lonely. It could mean they feel financial pressure from a depressed world economy and they are facing rent or bills they can't pay. It's a difficult world right now. Which is why people move from their real world problems to an act of escapism. Fiction. Easily digestible content that appeals to them.
In the current state of the fandom, I'm going to make a leap and suggest that it is not easily digestible anymore. Not because of the content itself. Reading a story about Twilight Sparkle suddenly finding the wonderful, fluffy world of plushie ownership isn't necessarily difficult to digest. It's the definition of 'Fluff'. But instead, the community has made itself difficult to integrate into. The very clear division of 'sides' of strong arguments (whatever argument is the hot button topic at the point of reading this blog) is going to make people feel uncomfortable. And in certain arguments, that is the goal. The end goal is to make people feel uncomfortable enough to pick a side so that they feel that they have the moral high ground. So that they feel like their attempts to win an argument are means for a righteous end.
And to be absolutely clear about the intent of this blog. I think the arguments need to happen.
What I want to help others understand is that silent cost of these arguments. Of abrasive rhetoric.
I've made no silent attempt to share that I'm a fan of social commentary Youtube videos. Especially ones that are trying to explain the cogs of a machine rather than actually push someone in a social/political direction. The reality is that both sides of any argument will do what they can to make themselves seem like the best possible option, so they can attract more and more members until they reach a point they have a majority. Unwritten social contract dictates that 'majority rules', so then the other side is dismissed. And to make it all the more interesting, in a semi-anonymous space like the internet, it is so easy to shut down other social bubbles to make yourself look like a majority, that hearing a minority opinion feels "ridiculous".
"How could you possibly feel this way when my answer is so obviously correct?"
The end result is a heating up of the argument. Stakes are raised. You find high visibility targets that are clearly in the wrong and expose them. And the argument then gets more visibility. Which attracts more people to educate themselves and align to a side.
Except, there's a problem with this logic. And all of these preconceived assumptions is the basis of my argument today. I want to talk about the silent effect these arguments (good or bad) happen to have on our community. Not so we can do something about it, but understand what is at stake when we have them. How important the arguments are.
And I could very well get someone in the comments talking about how one of my preconceived assumptions is wrong. Thus, as a result, this entire blog should be disregarded. None of what I have to say here has any worth because one small piece of the Jenga tower can be pulled and make it crumble. Haha, get wrecked scrub.
When someone listens to an argument, there are two obvious options for the listener. You either side on the side of 'Ambiguous Resolution 1' or 'Ambiguous Resolution 2'. (Ambiguous in the meaning that there are two figureheads discussing a problem, and they have some solution to it. The method itself can be anything, and not important for this conversation. The assumption is that the two resolutions are inherently different.)
In this way, the conversation/argument can gather forces and supporters. The two people discussing the problem are likely not going to give up ground or sides, for the fear of looking weak. (or other reason) So, then it goes back to the "Majority rules" unwritten social contract.
But the problem that I see is that there are two other options to this. The first being Ignore.
You have every right to simply ignore the argument that is happening and go on about your life. The solution then becomes "Don't listen to the people making arguments all the time." "Don't listen to the people who are constantly poking the bear and instigating drama." and over a long period of time, this can be anyone. Hell, I (Flutterpriest, the writer of this blog, duh) am not immune to have making mistakes in the past. Do I regret them and those actions hurting people? Of course I do. But the list of people I knowingly hurt is way shorter than the number of people I might have unknowingly hurt, and I have to try to sleep at night not knowing the size of that group.
I say this not to make myself a part of this discussion (trust me, I want no part in this), but rather to make an example of someone who talks (probably too much) and has their things read by other people. People have the option at any point to simply ignore what I have to say and move on. My concern (and the point of my blog) is that over time, the number of people being ignored can begin to outweigh the the people being listened to. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that over time people begin to tune out those who take sides on issues in our fandom and make their opinion heard and well known. Especially for the sake of building a majority.
Well, the result of this is a group that begins to not only be ignorant that a problem is even happening, but is also subject to the result of what the new "Majority" decides. And sometimes, in rare cases, that majority that is ignorant to the problem, is larger than the majority which is making the rules that change the community.
Now, once again, I want to state the intent of this blog in big bold letters. I am not intentionally advocating or trying to sway people for a particular problem in our fandom that is currently happening. I understand how by reading this, and interpreting it based on current events, it can be read that way. And it could be interpreted as a bad thing. It could also be interpreted as a weapon. It is an attempt to explain the situation's consequences in a factual, non-biased light. And if I am wrong, you can ignore this blog. That is your right.
Our Jenga tower is getting pretty tall at this point. There's a lot of assumptions being made to reach this point in the blog. And I'm sorry that I have to make these assumptions to discuss my ultimate fear. Because, at any point, someone could still go into the comments, pull one Jenga piece out, and claim this entire blog/argument is pointless. By sharing this fact I'm practically inviting people to do so, even if I hope it doesn't happen. And if it makes them more comfortable to make this blog and my thought process nil, then I'm happy they can destroy it.
I'm going to stop beating around the bush and move to the thesis.
Over time, as enough of these fandom arguments happen, which create change for all of the fandom, the fourth option is presented. Leave.
The silent majority gets this option when enough arguments have happened that they've either ignored or been "on the wrong side of" that had resolutions that affected them in the long term. They begin to question "why are they even participating" and consider leaving the community.
So here is my thesis: "Every time we have a community wide argument, we kill the community a little bit."
And that could feel obvious. "When we win an argument, we get the people on the other side to leave." And perhaps that's good for some arguments.
But what if the argument is as innocuous as "I think pie is better than cake." And I would love to see a comment section filled with people arguing about how cake is better than pie, you filthy heathens.
Because if the thesis is true, then the role of a community moderator isn't just to ensure the community is acting legally and isn't a stewpot silent illegal activity, but also to step in and say "Uh, guys. Do we really need to be arguing this?"
Because, (and this is a huge leap) if we believe that Friendship is magictm and that we're a community of Love and Tolerance, then should we really be pushing people to the point of excommunication over not liking pie or cake?
Here's the point I'm trying to make.
If we're going to be arguing about something as a community, we need to ensure that the stakes are high. (And I'm not saying that anything currently going on at the time of this blog post isn't or is high stakes. Because my hope is to make this blog semi-timeless) If a community learns that they can remove people they don't like by just making more and more arguments, then the arguments will continue until the community isn't fun to be a part of anymore. Thus, the murder of a community occurs. The community becomes so hyper-focused on a super specific set of opinions that it becomes difficult or impossible for new members to join. And a sort of 'radicalization' occurs. You filthy Cake lovers.
It also means that bad actors can jump in and make an argument for the pure purpose of making a community less fun to be in. (Not that it is or isn't what is happening, but the opportunity is there.)
So what's the moral of the the blog? Nothing you haven't heard before. Choose your battles wisely. Something you are probably already doing. And if so, good for you!
If we argue about something as a community, then we need to ensure it's for the right reasons. And I'm not going to tell you what is or isn't a right reason. You need to decide that for yourself. I just hope we understand what the stakes are behind every argument made. Not for this argument. Maybe not even the next. But the one after, or the one after.
I'll go the next step and claim: "It is not worth fighting if Pie is better than Cake. Because in the grand scheme of things, what does it matter?"
But other arguments? And the ones in the future. They may be that important. And that's even knowing what is at stake. But that's for you to decide.
It isn't about Pie vs Cake. It's about who holds power over whom. Or, in the original Russian: кто кого?
......damn, you go Flutter.
I like my discussions to be open to all sides of thought. I don't censor anyone for anything, even if I find it abhorrent.
I fully support freedom of expression and thought, no matter what it is.
Yes, this will lead to a plethora of insults and flame wars, but I much prefer this to shutting down opposing view points. It will slowly keep censoring and appeasing vocal voices till we have a place that no longer appeals to anyone but those with power.
It's why all my blogs, as of late, have actual discussions going on. I don't let one side overpower another. Everyone is free to speak their mind. That's how I like it. I do not like walking on eggshells, and I do not like it when people have to be afraid to speak their mind.
i.huffpost.com/gen/1848268/images/o-CHERPUMPLE-facebook.jpg
5300217
I want it in my mouth.
5300217
I need this recipe!
Is there some sort of plush fetish thing going around that I should be mocking.
Freedom, like power comes with responsibility.
Some arguments are worth having. Some are not. Very few, if any, are worth isolating people or causing a community to turn on its members for differing opinions.
In short, please act responsibly.
Be aware that the side you pick may diminish not just those against you, but potentially also those for you, and especially those who care not to take sides. So choose your stances with care.
Right?
5300217
You mad, mad kirin, you!
5300223
(stealing this for a title for my reply)
5300195
This is close to the truth, but it misses how the power is used. Suddenly, people are realizing that a superminority of city residents making a loud noise in a park can change their whole city. But if they enforce these changes through fear, the changes will only stick so long as that fear remains. Power is a tool--a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
I was apolitical. At least until recently. Until the far left progressives disgusted me, pushed me towards a moderate-right position on some social issues (not so much for economic issues though). The callous disregard for the other person in the argument and the aggressive, invasive approach to the very concept of neutrality were the driving factors that got me to break my neutrality and apathy, and turn not with them, but against them.
What I've seen recently, even from left-leaning individuals in the brony community, has only confirmed my beliefs and cemented my new position. My existence is testament to the cost of these arguments. I used to say "if you win the argument but lose the person, you haven't won at all." Lately, I've realized the argument never even happened. If the other side was anywhere to the right of far left, they were labeled Nazis, and therefore, no argument was needed. Problem is, the fear's wearing off; I'm as afraid of being called a Nazi by an Internet stranger as I am being called a witch by a Salem citizen (that is, I'm only afraid of either one if there's a mob nearby, but no judge, jury, and lawyer). And if things keep going the way they are, I think the rest of the country will lose that fear as well. And with that loss of fear will come a loss of power. Mark my words, you heard it here first.
I present for your analysis the following quote. Read it in the perspective of an apolitical American who just wants stability back, and in light of recent events--arson from the left, shootings from the right, shootings against and by members of the CHOP--of the absolute failure of both sides of the political spectrum to de-esacalate the political tensions.
Quote taken from the attached video.
The things you believe in, they're your beliefs. You own them. They are non-physical possessions. They are things you have chosen to believe are true, right, and noble. To betray a belief for a better one is not to betray yourself, but to better yourself.
When the argument's pie vs. cake, it's a good idea to ask if it's worth losing a community over.
When the argument's about who is allowed to live, a community is worth losing to ensure people get their basic rights.
How about actually sitting down and having the conversation and listening to the opposing side even if you strongly disagree with it. That is the problem that we seem to be facing is people that are not willing to listen.
It is a nice standpoint. It asks good questions.
And at a guess to many matters, it's reached the point of being scorched earth on both sides yet again by the sounds of many issues.
There is, both online, offline, out there in the world a view of us vs them. And in some cases of american culture, compromise is seen as a lesser loss you salvage from a total loss.
I sadly wonder when we starting blinding ourselves. When we lost the value of us as human beings as a whole to better.
There are voices that we should be listening to, not of divides, not of fears. But unity, and that these divides are artificial.
But I am different in seeking moderations, in standing both with things to change, and to step out because if I don't change both sides by showing I am more than what I believe, no one else will stand out either.
We have to change our surroundings for the better. Be that a party, a belief, a standing viewpoint.
Whatever.
Stand up, and be human.
Stand up, and be tolerant.
Speak up, and find friends.
Speak up, and be a good soul that betters things for everyone.
Cheers!
One old fogey, signing off.
At this point it’s so crazy that I’m just waiting for weed to be federal so everyone can take a chill pill.
i.imgur.com/fk1Bwr6.jpg
Yeah, it's an easy meme to point a finger at the American political system, BUT
this scenario can apply to a lot of topics and communities. You have 1% of the people at either end of a given argumentative spectrum, being the most extreme, the most unwilling to budge on their position or listen to the other side, and unfortunately, the most vocal. And the other 98% of the community in the middle just trying to get on with their lives.
It becomes a case of a few bad apples making the whole bunch look bad by spewing vitriol back and forth at each other, and giving anyone outside of the community the idea that everyone in that group/nation/fandom are all just as extreme when that simply is not the case.
And as you said, those who are in the middle, forced to continuously listen to either side just want to bury their head in the sand or leave altogether.
5300531
As it turns out, listening to an opposing view point does not actually harm you!
i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/211/984/89c.png
I think the echo chamber effect is one of the biggest problems in the modern political world. We are more connected than ever. But more and more, people gravitate to people they agree with and filter out opposing viewpoints. And then they can all stand around and pat each other on the backs and agree with each other about how right they are, and how anyone who disagrees must be evil or deranged.
Thank you for this blog, Priest.
It needed to be said, and it's about time someone addressed this.
5300630
Every time that opposing viewpoint is how Bill Gates is using 5G to inoculate us with COVID-19 or something, I die a little inside.
Not really sure why I'm commenting, but I think I'll stick to the silent not caring. As long as what ever the he'll is being argued about doesn't effect my normal daily life it doesn't matter. Should it get to the point it does ill move on.
Simple. At some point both sides have lost the ability for compromise, We’ve developed an “I’m right and your wrong mentality.”
5300340
I feel like I could take your post, swap all the left / right references, and you get me. Was fairly right-wing for years (I'm in my 50s). But the lead up to the 2016 election had me questioning a lot. I'm now pretty much a moderate with a mix of left and right positions. Not even sure if I'd call myself "leaning" either way overall. Depends on the specific topic, and even then I'm finding I rarely agree completely with either side.
Not mentioning the arguments that you think are worth fighting over makes this feel kind of hollow. I don't think I'm as integrated into the community as you are FP, but the only controvesy I've been aware of lately is taking stuff like Derpibooru promising to take stuff like Aryanne off its site, then backpedaling. Which is just part of the fallout from the fandom's self-examination that started when Jetfire2012/CA Shoultz tried gutting people with a sword.
Related content.
Welcome to an Election Year where everyone's lost their mind into Social Justice and Identiarian politics. As the Joker said, "You get what you deserve."
But if shit happens, you can always make your own parallel system that aims for higher goals.
cdn.ponybooru.org/img/2020/7/5/2/large.png
https://ponybooru.org/images/2
Well said FP.
5300343
The thing is, the Brony community isn't running the United States; our actual power to control wider society is pretty limited. Primarily, as usual, the current big issue is about things within the fandom. If sacrificing the Brony fandom would someone end racism, transphobia, homophobia, Naziism, etc. in even just the United States? Much as I value this, there is so much good that could do, indeed. But this argument is about, as far as I know, the fandom's stance and atmosphere, what sorts of things we feel to others like we promote and who's comfortable being here. And that argument is meaningless if, at the end of it, there's no we or here left, unless/until the fight becomes more about destroying the bad than saving the good.
So I still think, in agreement with the blog post (and thanks for making the post, Flutterpriest), that it's important to consider how much damage is being done, looking at the full context, and whether it's worth it.
(One could say that negative aspects of the fandom could expose people to dangerous views and eventually lead those people to doing harm, yes -- but that can go the other way, too, in leading people away from dangerous views, and the fandom also does unrelated real-world good from, just looking at financial good, charity collections at conventions to just someone on FIMFiction saying they need a little bit of extra money to make rent and would someone please help.)
5300343
This. This exactly.
We aren't fighting about "small stuff," we're fighting over if it's okay for society to murder black people and jews.
2020 in summary
i.imgur.com/KkZs0oD.jpg
5300340
Among the so-called "rationalist" community, a similar phenomenon is called "evaporative cooling". The examples most often thrown out when explaining it is how doomsday cults only become more fervent with each failed prediction.
5300964
Your story is similar to my parents. They are both former pro-life lukewarm Republicains turned centrist Democrats during the 2016 election.
5307845
I have yet to see anyone argue that they should be murdered.
5309818
Even the literal Adolf Hitler never gave a public speech where he said Jews should be killed. Violent racists don't stand up and admit they are violent racists. they just say it's a goddamn shame that these minorities are such violent, inferior criminals and it's society would be better off without them and let their followers connect the dots.
The only time I argue, isn't about the fandom. Why bother arguing over personal taste? Maybe an opinionated discussion to try to see merits of a different perspective.
Like Trixie n Chrysalis can be cool, even if people say they are bad, and perspective of them can change over time. People viewing alot of art are going to be more open minded about characters and see more sides to them.
If this is more about politics. Well. Shit happens, people will have ulterior motives sometimes. Sometimes they are just passionate and hurt others accidentally.
Though if people are playing for teams, then sure, that's an ulterior motive and a half. But if people are for a team, they are against the majority of reasonable silent individuals, the people they are supposedly fighting for half the time. Most people just don't have the energy to give a fuck. But I guess it being 2020 that's kinda different now. Still most people prefer stability, and stability has A LOT of value. It lends to consistency which allows work to get done.
So, the real issue is driving out the non-extremists, thinking you are convincing people when really you are just alienating people into a circle jerk then get to pat yourself on the back all day. People take their lives seriously usually, even if its just forum posting all day.
Then some people just like asserting power over others.
Anyways, the fandom will get fresh blood eventually, all at once if G5 takes off. Then the extremists will get called out and overshadowed, but noobs and new shenanigans will occur because with fresh blood comes new people who don't know why they should get along with others, and for others chaos is the time to strike.
In any case, pony should pony. Keep things to their respective areas and it should be kinda fine right? Idk what the fandom has had for drama lately other than the derpibooru strike thing.
5300323
LMAO yes and I think its originating in some fun communities. But I think why it happens is because they are 3-d irl versions of ponies in some fashion so then our brain processes them as more real in some ways. Like even Nasa uses stuffed animals to improve crew psychology.
5300217
So is this neoliberalism or is it National Bolshevik lol j/k (follow jreg on youtube to know what I mean)
5300343
What if they want the community to be lost? Also tbh its because 4chan is tied in to early fandom.
5300558
Nice. I caution against 25+% thc pot though, because either that or a chemical associated with plants yielding that much, causes increased rates of psychosis not for those predisposed. THC is slightly pro-psychotic meanwhile cbd is anti-psychotic. Which is why regular pot is fine.
5300195
Power is relevant always, but its not mentioned or thought of always for argumentation used. Just for authoritarians.
5300531
Yes. The science supports this. On studies with rats deciding to be racist or not being tied to upbringing and segregation basically. (Which implies ppl can learn to see others as valid, however some 'racist facts' and such are getting in the way because its like flat earthers using confirmation bias to think the earth is flat then conspiracy theories afterward.(But in this case the assumption is its genetic rather than economic) But still personal experiences can change some minds, they can't change all minds. Depends on upbringing largely (but not fully).)
5300941
That's because teams are fighting for their ulterior motive, not to determine whats true. They suspended their critical and rational faculties in expense of pursuing their goals. Compromise is complex though and sometimes done poorly. Like, how you compromise correctly is based on solutions for assumed facts, not for assumed goals.
5300964
Moderates ftw
5309854
Even that's too blatant. But at the same time some people see them not being blatant, and pick up their arguments because they got a different impression. Which means not all speaking similarly are who they seem to be. And sometimes progressivism is overreaching. Its possible both sides are wrong, in fact its likely. (Because people fighting for teams only care about those defining themselves as in their team, not on the results of the actions they take, studies show)