Options

Twenty thousand posts under the SE(++), or, Emergent group dynamics in online communities

2456722

Posts

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    If you want to look at how people interact online, you should start with Plato.

    The parable is literally about how anonymity and consequence free actions cause otherwise normal people to behave evilly.

    It was used as an argument that mankind, at its most base form, is unkind, selfish, and cruel.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    FishmanFishman Put your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain. Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Artreus wrote:
    I never really got the whole acting way different online thing.

    I'm pretty sure I'm about the same on or offline

    Consequence free behavior.

    If you had the opportunity to steal a million dollars and you knew you never would be caught, would you take it?

    If you would, then fear of consequences affects your decision making on stealing.

    Maybe. I'm gonna need more specifics about this million dollars.

    Also, your bank account number and your mother's maiden name.

    Fishman on
    X-Com LP Thread I, II, III, IV, V
    That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    sig.png
  • Options
    M.D.M.D. and then what happens? Registered User regular
    Wimble wrote:
    shock videos and images really bum me out

    even just thinking about people sharing them and enjoying them makes me feel very sad

    same here

    I also dislike watching movies labeled as horror that are nothing but gore or torture, while it's fake it's still sad how many people like that stuff

  • Options
    OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? the foot of mt fujiRegistered User regular
    Wimble wrote:
    shock videos and images really bum me out

    even just thinking about people sharing them and enjoying them makes me feel very sad

    same here

    I also dislike watching movies labeled as horror that are nothing but gore or torture, while it's fake it's still sad how many people like that stuff

    I don't like those movies either

    But at least the idea with those is that you are ostensibly watching a horror movie to be horrified, and it's not real anyway

    People spreading videos of actual, real, heinous death is way worse, at least in my mind

    signature-deffo.jpg
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
  • Options
    MorivethMoriveth BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWNRegistered User regular
    Yeah, I don't really get shock images/videos

    hooray, you watched a man get fucked to death by a horse

    good for you?

  • Options
    WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    With me, what you get with my posting is what you'd get in person. So far as, I don't have a fake persona. Too much effort.

    Re: Horror stuff and reddit.

    I like giant portions of mainstream reddit. Blaming reddit is akin to blaming the evolution of eyes for the things that those eyes see.

    Horror, I hate torture porn. But I love early Hellraiser stuff, which has a lot of mutilation in it. The kicker is, the chains and hooks aren't the torture. They have things to show you. And they're (Pinhead and the Cenobits) are impervious to everything except their own rules. The inevitability of being taken into their world, the complete lack of hope for a way out, is what makes it scary in a way that works for me.

  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    yeah I have basically no desire to see shock videos

    descriptions of the shit the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did makes me feel real ugly inside

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Tossrock wrote:
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    But it's parable to prove that philosopher king's don't work!

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    I still sometimes have night terrors and sleep paralysis.

    Watching scary stuff before bed is my way of heading that stuff off at the pass.

  • Options
    romanqwertyromanqwerty Registered User regular
    I never really understood the no-alts when I first joined here but I do now.

    Having a persistent identity in this community reinstates some of the consequences of behaviour that internet anonymity removes. I think that goes a long way to keeping this place more manageable and enables some form of behavioural self-regulation.

  • Options
    godmodegodmode Southeast JapanRegistered User regular
    I used to be an asshole teenager on the internet, too. Then one day it occurred to me that there are real people on the other end of the pipes, and it stopped being funny to call people "fag" and make fun of them for their beliefs and feelings.

    Oh yeah, and child pornography is fucking detestable, to include the suggestion of such.

  • Options
    ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    I'm the same person online and off but I show it a lot...more? online

    I've got Issues that keep me from being very expressive in person

    But it's easier when you're all just words on my screen, so I'm allowed to be myself but moreso

    Nothing about consequences, everything about anxiety issues

  • Options
    BeastehBeasteh THAT WOULD NOT KILL DRACULARegistered User regular
    Wimble wrote:
    shock videos and images really bum me out

    even just thinking about people sharing them and enjoying them makes me feel very sad

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Buttlord wrote:
    I'm the same person online and off but I show it a lot...more? online

    I've got Issues that keep me from being very expressive in person

    But it's easier when you're all just words on my screen, so I'm allowed to be myself but moreso

    Nothing about consequences, everything about anxiety issues

    Anxiety is part of fear of consequences. It's a very real expression of that fear.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    A thing that I hate so much. I'm dating a single mom. We're out shopping or sight-seeing or whatever.

    If she isn't visible, like she has to use the bathroom or she runs back to the car,

    Everyone looks at me like I'm a pedo kidnapper.

    But if I have to go to the bathroom or I run back to the car, when I come back she's surrounded by people all 'oh your kids are so cute blahblahblah"

  • Options
    ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Also I enjoy some "torture porn", mostly just Hostel and the first two or three Saw movies

    The psychological kind is what fucks with me worse

    I have like a recurring fear from watching The Poughkeepsie Tapes two years ago and most of what made that scary was just how fucked up it is to watch everything from the killer's point of view

  • Options
    BeastehBeasteh THAT WOULD NOT KILL DRACULARegistered User regular
    i am way more of a sarcastic asshole irl

    i also dont have any rl friends

  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Tossrock wrote:
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    But it's parable to prove that philosopher king's don't work!

    I don't think it is? The ring is Book II, Philosopher Kings don't get involved until Book V, and I seem to recall Soccrates being pretty big on the idea. Although I admit I haven't read The Republic since college.

    edit: yeah I'm reading through it now and I'm pretty sure the ring of Gyges is used to prove that Justice must be an intrinsic good

    double edit: whoops I meant virtue, not justice

    triple edit: or maybe it was justice???

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Options
    Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    Bucketman wrote:
    The first time someone showed me reddit, I was at a friends house and he said "Hey you guys should check out this sweet video I found!" it was linked from Reddit, and it was a guy being held down by two others while his throat was slashed open with a knife and he bled to death.

    I don't go to Reddit much now, nor talk to that friend.

    I don't even know how I'd react to someone doing that

    I think I might just start shouting at them

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Tossrock wrote:
    Tossrock wrote:
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    But it's parable to prove that philosopher king's don't work!

    I don't think it is? The ring is Book II, Philosopher Kings don't get involved until Book V, and I seem to recall Soccrates being pretty big on the idea. Although I admit I haven't read The Republic since college.

    The point of the Ring is that deep down everyone is evil.

    It's the best counter presented to Socrates arguments in the book, and Socrates doesn't really address it sufficiently. Needless to say, if you believe the Gyges parable, then philosopher kings don't work.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    Tommy2HandsTommy2Hands what is this where am i Registered User regular
    godmode wrote:
    I used to be an asshole teenager on the internet, too. Then one day it occurred to me that there are real people on the other end of the pipes, and it stopped being funny to call people "fag" and make fun of them for their beliefs and feelings.

    Oh yeah, and child pornography is fucking detestable, to include the suggestion of such.

    I was reading this post and I somehow missed the 'child' bit and I had to reread it again after audibly saying, "Wait, that's not right"

    8j12qx8ma5j5.jpg
  • Options
    AtheraalAtheraal Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Moriveth wrote:
    Usagi wrote:

    Also: cocks forever.

    Counterpoint: Dicks forever

    lol

    Well as I understand it, Reddit took down a bunch of subforums that mostly weren't actually technically child porn, just heinous shit. But seeing as it's just some crappy website and not the United Nations, I don't really see how it's a free speech issue at all, like some people are saying. If some government-sponsored authorities had stepped in, that would be a different matter, but it was a response by the administrators of the site to the brewing potential of a media backlash against them.

    That said, I appreciate that the event's helping to bring these subjects to people's notoriously fickle Internet attention. Free speech, censorship and anonymity are some of the most difficult matters of discourse to thread. Instead of finding a 'solution' it's more like you need to work out a balance, which the world's governments and communities have been doing largely individually for a long, long time. I'd like to see some real cooperation on finding ways to bring together global policy on the subjects, but I don't trust the ability of our leaders and lawmakers to make the right choices for everyone. It has to incorporate literally everyone, which is still somehow an even worse idea.

    The best thing we can do as free societies is try our hardest to create unbiased and rational education systems, available to as many people as possible, and encourage a culture of tolerance and respect through them.

    Atheraal on
  • Options
    WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    If I ever have a teenager of either sex, they are not getting a webcam or camera phone or digicam.

  • Options
    Firematic.Firematic. Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Buttlord wrote:
    Also I enjoy some "torture porn", mostly just Hostel and the first two or three Saw movies

    The psychological kind is what fucks with me worse

    I have like a recurring fear from watching The Poughkeepsie Tapes two years ago and most of what made that scary was just how fucked up it is to watch everything from the killer's point of view

    I was tempted to watch the Poughkeepsie Tapes. But I'm from that area and have been to Poughkeepsie and really that was a terrible enough experience.

    That aside, there is also a pretty common practice of creating a handle/nick/identity on one social community and then using the same for other communities. Sure the first time it has some level of anonymity but eventually you have a body of work across multiple sites that people can see. I think it becomes more of a way of being what you want to be as a person given the chance of introducing yourself to a group with no background given . And if none of that made sense, well I just woke up at 3 am for no good damned reason.

    Firematic. on
  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Tossrock wrote:
    Tossrock wrote:
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    But it's parable to prove that philosopher king's don't work!

    I don't think it is? The ring is Book II, Philosopher Kings don't get involved until Book V, and I seem to recall Soccrates being pretty big on the idea. Although I admit I haven't read The Republic since college.

    The point of the Ring is that deep down everyone is evil.

    It's the best counter presented to Socrates arguments in the book, and Socrates doesn't really address it sufficiently. Needless to say, if you believe the Gyges parable, then philosopher kings don't work.

    Well, I think you may have missed the whole point of The Republic! The point is that philosophers pursue Eudamonia, which Soccrates asserts virtue is necessary and sufficient for (justice being one element of virtue). So, the point of a philosopher king is that they would not use the ring for evil, and additionally would lead their kingdom in peace and wisdom. It's regular kings that don't work.

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Options
    WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    Like, hey sure, here's your iZune7, I took the liberty of shoving a soldering iron through the camera lens.

  • Options
    godmodegodmode Southeast JapanRegistered User regular
    Weaver wrote:
    If I ever have a teenager of either sex, they are not getting a webcam or camera phone or digicam.

    I used to tutor some elementary school kids shortly before I left the military. In a group of 6 4th-graders, half had smartphones.

    I have a feeling that figure will rise significantly over the next few years.

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Tossrock wrote:
    Tossrock wrote:
    Tossrock wrote:
    As a Philosopher King, I am immune to the power of the Ring

    But it's parable to prove that philosopher king's don't work!

    I don't think it is? The ring is Book II, Philosopher Kings don't get involved until Book V, and I seem to recall Soccrates being pretty big on the idea. Although I admit I haven't read The Republic since college.

    The point of the Ring is that deep down everyone is evil.

    It's the best counter presented to Socrates arguments in the book, and Socrates doesn't really address it sufficiently. Needless to say, if you believe the Gyges parable, then philosopher kings don't work.

    Well, I think you may have missed the whole point of The Republic! The point is that philosophers pursue Eudamonia, which Soccrates asserts virtue is necessary and sufficient for (justice being one element of virtue). So, the point of a philosopher king is that they would not use the ring for evil, and additionally would lead their kingdom in peace and wisdom. It's regular kings that don't work.

    I don't think Socrates ever really gave a good explanation for why the PKs wouldn't use the ring for evil, especially since the point was that anyone who had the ring would eventually be tempted by it.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Part of the reason why I buy into the ring of gyges argument is that I have seen how people tend to behave when they have that anonymity veil.

    Technology has advanced to the point where we can really see how people behave in consequence free scenarios.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    Butler For Life #1Butler For Life #1 Twinning is WinningRegistered User regular
    There some important things Socrates didn't refute very well, or at all.

    In the Republic, he's surrounded by sycophants who agree with everything he says, and those who disagree are treated like idiots and quickly forgotten about.

  • Options
    WimbleWimble Registered User regular
    I agree that it's easy for people to act selfish and cruel in a lot of circumstances. Too easy. Often depressingly easy. But I also strongly believe in the quote "we want to live by each others' happiness, not by each other's misery" and so I do not agree with the notion that mankind is unkind, selfish and cruel at its most base form

    4SMZq.jpg
  • Options
    TheGerbilTheGerbil Registered User regular
    godmode wrote:
    Weaver wrote:
    If I ever have a teenager of either sex, they are not getting a webcam or camera phone or digicam.

    I used to tutor some elementary school kids shortly before I left the military. In a group of 6 4th-graders, half had smartphones.

    I have a feeling that figure will rise significantly over the next few years.

    The worst part is the entitlement many feel over it. I don't have a smart phone simply because I don't want to pay for the data plans (they are expensive in Canada), but I see grade schoolers with them all the time. It blows my mind. People consider them a necessity nowadays!

  • Options
    ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Firematic. wrote:
    Buttlord wrote:
    Also I enjoy some "torture porn", mostly just Hostel and the first two or three Saw movies

    The psychological kind is what fucks with me worse

    I have like a recurring fear from watching The Poughkeepsie Tapes two years ago and most of what made that scary was just how fucked up it is to watch everything from the killer's point of view

    I was tempted to watch the Poughkeepsie Tapes. But I'm from that area and have been to Poughkeepsie and really that was a terrible enough experience.

    That aside, there is also a pretty common practice of creating a handle/nick/identity on one social community and then using the same for other communities. Sure the first time it has some level of anonymity but eventually you have a body of work across multiple sites that people can see. I think it becomes more of a way of being what you want to be as a person given the chance of introducing yourself to a group with no background given . And if none of that made sense, well I just woke up at 3 am for no good damned reason.

    Poughkeepsie Tapes is a good enough movie, kinda mediocre in the non-found footage parts, and it's obvious that it's the Dowdles' first movie

    But it's good enough of a movie, and a crazy enough idea, that I wanted to see Devil based solely on it being directed by one of them

    It's also got the potential to be mind-shatteringly terrifying if you have issues!

    You know the old cliche with the killer hiding in the house? Try watching that cliche from the killer's camera

    Not a lot of fun!

    Buttlord on
  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    I don't think Socrates ever really gave a good explanation for why the PKs wouldn't use the ring for evil, especially since the point was that anyone who had the ring would eventually be tempted by it.

    Well, the explanation would be by definition; Socrates' definition of a philosopher king simply would not use the ring, because it is not their desire to do so. The story of the ring of Gyges shows that all unjust men submit to corruption, greed, etc. The middle few books of The Republic are a complex analogy of a state to a person, and argue that a well-ordered state and a well-ordered soul both exhibit the virtues, which a philosopher should pursue.

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Options
    ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    TheGerbil wrote:
    godmode wrote:
    Weaver wrote:
    If I ever have a teenager of either sex, they are not getting a webcam or camera phone or digicam.

    I used to tutor some elementary school kids shortly before I left the military. In a group of 6 4th-graders, half had smartphones.

    I have a feeling that figure will rise significantly over the next few years.

    The worst part is the entitlement many feel over it. I don't have a smart phone simply because I don't want to pay for the data plans (they are expensive in Canada), but I see grade schoolers with them all the time. It blows my mind. People consider them a necessity nowadays!

    I bought one this year because I thought it was cool and I can afford the data plan finally, but I'd have no problems going back to a feature phone

    And there's no goddamn reason for a fourth grade kid to have a smartphone

    What the shit America

  • Options
    Firematic.Firematic. Registered User regular
    Well, in that case, I am going to live in a glass house.
    Try hiding in THERE jerks.
    Also please don't touch anything.

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Tossrock wrote:
    I don't think Socrates ever really gave a good explanation for why the PKs wouldn't use the ring for evil, especially since the point was that anyone who had the ring would eventually be tempted by it.

    Well, the explanation would be by definition; Socrates' definition of a philosopher king simply would not use the ring, because it is not their desire to do so. The story of the ring of Gyges shows that all unjust men submit to corruption, greed, etc. The middle few books of The Republic are a complex analogy of a state to a person, and argue that a well-ordered state and a well-ordered soul both exhibit the virtues, which a philosopher should pursue.

    We're kinda going in circle at this point. You are right, that is what Socrates says. But I think that's a cop out. "They wouldn't use it by definition" does not address the points of the counterargument, it simply dismisses them and moves on.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    There some important things Socrates didn't refute very well, or at all.

    In the Republic, he's surrounded by sycophants who agree with everything he says, and those who disagree are treated like idiots and quickly forgotten about.

    totally bro
    I had always admired the genius of Glaucon and Adeimantus, but on hearing these words I was quite delighted, and said: Sons of an illustrious father, that was not a bad beginning of the Elegiac verses which the admirer of Glaucon made in honour of you after you had distinguished yourselves at the battle of Megara:--

    'Sons of Ariston,' he sang, 'divine offspring of an illustrious hero.' The epithet is very appropriate, for there is something truly divine in being able to argue as you have done for the superiority of injustice, and remaining unconvinced by your own arguments. And I do believe that you are not convinced --this I infer from your general character, for had I judged only from your speeches I should have mistrusted you. But now, the greater my confidence in you, the greater is my difficulty in knowing what to say. For I am in a strait between two; on the one hand I feel that I am unequal to the task; and my inability is brought home to me by the fact that you were not satisfied with the answer which I made to Thrasymachus, proving, as I thought, the superiority which justice has over injustice. And yet I cannot refuse to help, while breath and speech remain to me; I am afraid that there would be an impiety in being present when justice is evil spoken of and not lifting up a hand in her defence. And therefore I had best give such help as I can.

    sig.png
  • Options
    TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    Tossrock wrote:
    I don't think Socrates ever really gave a good explanation for why the PKs wouldn't use the ring for evil, especially since the point was that anyone who had the ring would eventually be tempted by it.

    Well, the explanation would be by definition; Socrates' definition of a philosopher king simply would not use the ring, because it is not their desire to do so. The story of the ring of Gyges shows that all unjust men submit to corruption, greed, etc. The middle few books of The Republic are a complex analogy of a state to a person, and argue that a well-ordered state and a well-ordered soul both exhibit the virtues, which a philosopher should pursue.

    We're kinda going in circle at this point. You are right, that is what Socrates says. But I think that's a cop out. "They wouldn't use it by definition" does not address the points of the counterargument, it simply dismisses them and moves on.

    Well, what are the points of the counter argument? That people are mean when they're anonymous? My (not socrates) counter argument to that would be that not everyone who's anonymous is unjust, and to paint all of humanity with a broad brush is a little premature.

    sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.