Yep, everyone seems to do that. Some are horrified because dolphins commit "rape", when for many creatures the notion of consent don't even make sense.
It seems to me it's essentially anthropomorphising animals and assuming that human sexual values apply to them
Yep, everyone seems to do that. Some are horrified because dolphins commit "rape", when for many creatures the notion of consent don't even make sense.
I only got around halfway through before the flashbacks to my extremely online self got too burdensome. This relies a lot on you caring about twitter discourse and caring specifically about these...
I only got around halfway through before the flashbacks to my extremely online self got too burdensome.
This relies a lot on you caring about twitter discourse and caring specifically about these personalities. I’ve known about shoeonhead since I was 15 and going through that anti-sjw YouTube phase. And I only recently found out about big Joel when I was using twitter a lot last year.
I can’t imagine normal people knowing/caring about any of these people or what they have to say about anything.
I guess what counts as normal? I’m more online than the average person but have been off Twitter for over a year and even when I was terminally online I had never heard of shoeOnHead and thought...
I can’t imagine normal people knowing/caring about any of these people or what they have to say about anything.
I guess what counts as normal? I’m more online than the average person but have been off Twitter for over a year and even when I was terminally online I had never heard of shoeOnHead and thought the video was pretty interesting. The last 5 or so minutes of the video are talking about in general how people act and get defensive online. In fact, I caught myself getting into the same defensive mindset Big Joel talks about at the end of this video in response to your comment and had to catch myself and walk myself back from that. I learned a couple new philosophy terms that took me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, got asked a question that made me deeply uncomfortable and have to have an internal discussion with my diet and society™️, learned a bit about how online “debates” can spiral and be framed, and a little bit about being more empathetic to people in general.
I only got around halfway through before the flashbacks to my extremely online self got too burdensome
I had the same reaction at first. The end of the video is an attempt to get the viewer to think about why you feel that way.
So I watched the rest of the video expecting this: And I didn't get that at all. When I said I was getting flashbacks, I meant I was getting flashbacks to how embarrassing I used to be by spending...
So I watched the rest of the video expecting this:
The end of the video is an attempt to get the viewer to think about why you feel that way.
And I didn't get that at all.
When I said I was getting flashbacks, I meant I was getting flashbacks to how embarrassing I used to be by spending so much time on Twitter. And pontificating and philosophizing about dumb tweets, which this video does over the course of twenty minutes.
This is a video made by an extremely online person, for extremely online people. Which is essentially what all of Breadtube is.
Only about 10% of Twitter users are responsible for 80% of the content on Twitter. This is a video about a certain segment of left twitter, so it's talking about an unbelievably small minority of people who have way too much time on their hands. And Joel says it in his video that this is meaningless twitter drama, but if he really believed it was meaningless he wouldn't have made a twenty minute video about it. If this was about not eating meat anymore that should have been a separate video divorced from all the shoe0nhead talk.
Don't get me wrong, you got out of it something positive. You're saying it made you think and made you read wikipedia articles, which is a start. If it makes you become vegetarian or vegan, then that's cool. I've known people that go vegetarian because of documentaries that they watch. But, if you don't have experience being on Twitter all the time, like you and me do, this video isn't offering much.
We can pontificate and philosophize online interactions all day, but a simpler thing to do is to just log off.
I find the idea of completely disregarding the state of online discourse to be very unwise. Online discourse is real-world discourse, and it has real-world effects. I'm not saying you should...
I find the idea of completely disregarding the state of online discourse to be very unwise. Online discourse is real-world discourse, and it has real-world effects.
I'm not saying you should participate in it, but it's a good idea to be aware of how it's going. After all, clearly the ideas being expressed online are shared by a large amount of people.
It’s easy to overlook that many people don’t participate in (online) discourses. I’m sure there is a nice word for this kind of "bias": you only read the opinions of the people who have the...
It’s easy to overlook that many people don’t participate in (online) discourses. I’m sure there is a nice word for this kind of "bias": you only read the opinions of the people who have the courage and ability to express themselves. It’s possible that the "mood" you perceive by reading the posts is not mirroring a real average, since you don’t see the lurkers and their honest thoughts 😅
Well, sure, obviously these conversations don't mirror the global concensus, but nothing on earth does because global consensus arguably doesn't exist. But there is value in understanding a great...
Well, sure, obviously these conversations don't mirror the global concensus, but nothing on earth does because global consensus arguably doesn't exist. But there is value in understanding a great number of different viewpoints.
I think online discourse on highly online platforms (aka highly public social media) is measurably different than the opinions of global discourse and consensus. My experience is that highly...
I think online discourse on highly online platforms (aka highly public social media) is measurably different than the opinions of global discourse and consensus. My experience is that highly online spaces tend to have a much higher percentage of people who don't really have social networks in meatspace (due to a combination of complicated factors such as interests in niche lifestyles, lack of agency due to age, or simply bad social skills). While I definitely think there is a demographic that believes in the ideas expressed in highly online discourse, for the most part it remains a niche of opinion, and honestly a pretty balkanized/stifling view at that. You're going to get much more colorful, in both good and bad ways, opinions with your friends, relatives, and parents on group chats than you will with Twitter talking heads.
What you are saying is right, but you're missing my point. I am not promoting the idea of everyone participating in online social networks. I'm promoting the idea of being aware of what that...
What you are saying is right, but you're missing my point. I am not promoting the idea of everyone participating in online social networks. I'm promoting the idea of being aware of what that discourse is.
The fact of the matter is that there is basically no online-offline divide. The things that happen online have effects on the real world. The online sphere is part of the real world.
And beyond that, if you are only talking to people in your local society, you are realistically in a filter bubble and will have a hard time understanding people who are outside of that local society.
As an aside, I also think it's a real mistake to assume that the people you see online are socially impaired or anything that would allow you to discount their feelings, because regardless of weather it's true or not their feelings are real.
I agree with this. But: This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is a "global society" out there. Online groups are just as much of a filter bubble as local society, often moreso. That...
The fact of the matter is that there is basically no online-offline divide. The things that happen online have effects on the real world. The online sphere is part of the real world.
I agree with this. But:
And beyond that, if you are only talking to people in your local society, you are realistically in a filter bubble and will have a hard time understanding people who are outside of that local society.
This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is a "global society" out there. Online groups are just as much of a filter bubble as local society, often moreso. That the filter is not location based doesn't change that it's a filter.
As an aside, I also think it's a real mistake to assume that the people you see online are socially impaired or anything that would allow you to discount their feelings, because regardless of weather it's true or not their feelings are real.
I'm not discounting their feelings, I think you're reading more into my comment than I intended (and I get the feeling that you're bringing a bit of online maximalism here, but reading tone on the internet is hard). I'm just repeating what I said earlier in a different way. People who prefer online socialization often prefer it due to various reasons and these reasons often create a filter bubble of their own by virtue of the choices that lead them to mostly online socialization. Moreover due to the nature of these online groups, whether they be interest based or other niche based, they often end up more narrow than meatspace groups. That doesn't have anything to do with the validity of their feelings, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of the feelings of meatspace groups either.
I'm not saying that online communities are not filter bubbles; quite the contrary, I'm saying that every forum, weather online or offline, is a filter bubble. I'm really not trying to fight you or...
I'm not saying that online communities are not filter bubbles; quite the contrary, I'm saying that every forum, weather online or offline, is a filter bubble.
I'm really not trying to fight you or accuse you of wrongdoing. I am saying that you are discounting their opinions because of who you assume they are, and that is prejudice. And while I do think that's a bad thing, it's also human nature.
Now you're talking about niche groups, and that's not really what I mean by paying attention to online discourse. I'm talking about the big open groups, like Twitter or the default Reddit groups. Just think about news outlets. Sure there are a bunch of stupid twitter stories, but journalists are absolutely right to be following what's happening there and to report it because it's an unprecedented view into the public psyche. It's the same reason why advertisers spend so much time and effort representing their brands there.
I think I'm just repeating myself at this point, so if you don't mind I'll make this my exit on this conversation.
Yep, everyone seems to do that. Some are horrified because dolphins commit "rape", when for many creatures the notion of consent don't even make sense.
I only got around halfway through before the flashbacks to my extremely online self got too burdensome.
This relies a lot on you caring about twitter discourse and caring specifically about these personalities. I’ve known about shoeonhead since I was 15 and going through that anti-sjw YouTube phase. And I only recently found out about big Joel when I was using twitter a lot last year.
I can’t imagine normal people knowing/caring about any of these people or what they have to say about anything.
I guess what counts as normal? I’m more online than the average person but have been off Twitter for over a year and even when I was terminally online I had never heard of shoeOnHead and thought the video was pretty interesting. The last 5 or so minutes of the video are talking about in general how people act and get defensive online. In fact, I caught myself getting into the same defensive mindset Big Joel talks about at the end of this video in response to your comment and had to catch myself and walk myself back from that. I learned a couple new philosophy terms that took me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, got asked a question that made me deeply uncomfortable and have to have an internal discussion with my diet and society™️, learned a bit about how online “debates” can spiral and be framed, and a little bit about being more empathetic to people in general.
I had the same reaction at first. The end of the video is an attempt to get the viewer to think about why you feel that way.
So I watched the rest of the video expecting this:
And I didn't get that at all.
When I said I was getting flashbacks, I meant I was getting flashbacks to how embarrassing I used to be by spending so much time on Twitter. And pontificating and philosophizing about dumb tweets, which this video does over the course of twenty minutes.
This is a video made by an extremely online person, for extremely online people. Which is essentially what all of Breadtube is.
Only about 10% of Twitter users are responsible for 80% of the content on Twitter. This is a video about a certain segment of left twitter, so it's talking about an unbelievably small minority of people who have way too much time on their hands. And Joel says it in his video that this is meaningless twitter drama, but if he really believed it was meaningless he wouldn't have made a twenty minute video about it. If this was about not eating meat anymore that should have been a separate video divorced from all the shoe0nhead talk.
Don't get me wrong, you got out of it something positive. You're saying it made you think and made you read wikipedia articles, which is a start. If it makes you become vegetarian or vegan, then that's cool. I've known people that go vegetarian because of documentaries that they watch. But, if you don't have experience being on Twitter all the time, like you and me do, this video isn't offering much.
We can pontificate and philosophize online interactions all day, but a simpler thing to do is to just log off.
I find the idea of completely disregarding the state of online discourse to be very unwise. Online discourse is real-world discourse, and it has real-world effects.
I'm not saying you should participate in it, but it's a good idea to be aware of how it's going. After all, clearly the ideas being expressed online are shared by a large amount of people.
It’s easy to overlook that many people don’t participate in (online) discourses. I’m sure there is a nice word for this kind of "bias": you only read the opinions of the people who have the courage and ability to express themselves. It’s possible that the "mood" you perceive by reading the posts is not mirroring a real average, since you don’t see the lurkers and their honest thoughts 😅
Well, sure, obviously these conversations don't mirror the global concensus, but nothing on earth does because global consensus arguably doesn't exist. But there is value in understanding a great number of different viewpoints.
I think online discourse on highly online platforms (aka highly public social media) is measurably different than the opinions of global discourse and consensus. My experience is that highly online spaces tend to have a much higher percentage of people who don't really have social networks in meatspace (due to a combination of complicated factors such as interests in niche lifestyles, lack of agency due to age, or simply bad social skills). While I definitely think there is a demographic that believes in the ideas expressed in highly online discourse, for the most part it remains a niche of opinion, and honestly a pretty balkanized/stifling view at that. You're going to get much more colorful, in both good and bad ways, opinions with your friends, relatives, and parents on group chats than you will with Twitter talking heads.
What you are saying is right, but you're missing my point. I am not promoting the idea of everyone participating in online social networks. I'm promoting the idea of being aware of what that discourse is.
The fact of the matter is that there is basically no online-offline divide. The things that happen online have effects on the real world. The online sphere is part of the real world.
And beyond that, if you are only talking to people in your local society, you are realistically in a filter bubble and will have a hard time understanding people who are outside of that local society.
As an aside, I also think it's a real mistake to assume that the people you see online are socially impaired or anything that would allow you to discount their feelings, because regardless of weather it's true or not their feelings are real.
I agree with this. But:
This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is a "global society" out there. Online groups are just as much of a filter bubble as local society, often moreso. That the filter is not location based doesn't change that it's a filter.
I'm not discounting their feelings, I think you're reading more into my comment than I intended (and I get the feeling that you're bringing a bit of online maximalism here, but reading tone on the internet is hard). I'm just repeating what I said earlier in a different way. People who prefer online socialization often prefer it due to various reasons and these reasons often create a filter bubble of their own by virtue of the choices that lead them to mostly online socialization. Moreover due to the nature of these online groups, whether they be interest based or other niche based, they often end up more narrow than meatspace groups. That doesn't have anything to do with the validity of their feelings, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of the feelings of meatspace groups either.
I'm not saying that online communities are not filter bubbles; quite the contrary, I'm saying that every forum, weather online or offline, is a filter bubble.
I'm really not trying to fight you or accuse you of wrongdoing. I am saying that you are discounting their opinions because of who you assume they are, and that is prejudice. And while I do think that's a bad thing, it's also human nature.
Now you're talking about niche groups, and that's not really what I mean by paying attention to online discourse. I'm talking about the big open groups, like Twitter or the default Reddit groups. Just think about news outlets. Sure there are a bunch of stupid twitter stories, but journalists are absolutely right to be following what's happening there and to report it because it's an unprecedented view into the public psyche. It's the same reason why advertisers spend so much time and effort representing their brands there.
I think I'm just repeating myself at this point, so if you don't mind I'll make this my exit on this conversation.