Sorry For Being Cliquish But Open-Air Meetups Are Counterproductive

This will be finished later today with just minor edits, as the placeholder images show. I have to go outside today.

WIP: WORK IN PROGRESS

Introduction

There’s been much said about how people are more sensitive compared to 15 years ago. Some people would say that it’s not that people are more sensitive, it’s that people have less tolerance to your bullshit. Some people like me would say that people are fussing and fretting over the most anodyne and benign stuff. How petty and trivial!

Rest assured that you won’t need a trigger, ahem, content warning. Let’s not get into the Culture Wars of it all or even the reasons for such. That’s another topic for another time. I’m just talking about this more from a subculture standpoint.

Unfortunately I didn’t study sociology at an A Level qualification standard but I did manage to find some youtube videos and free academic essays which explained some concepts that would be in its british National Curriculum. The sociology concept in question, is social facts, to illustrate how it’s been on the decline since World War Two.

What does it mean to be british? If you’re a politician who is implementing the Prevent Scheme, which expanded into the Prevent Duty and Prevent Curriculum, you would think that it means the cyberpunk insulated watchtower values of democracy, peace, tolerance and liberty – things that are too angelic and utopian to dissuade even the most quaint diluvian awestruck egalitarian. The sociology I would have learnt if I had bothered to revise for my GCSE qualifications beforehand, was that there are social values which unite everyone in a country by one woven thread. That would of been drinking tea, liking the queen and playing scrabble but since World War Two, at the sheer amount and rapid rate of inflation, too quick to allow the previous batch of immigrants to become accustomed to the culture, social facts are now a thing of the past, so it’s all gone pretty much all subcultural. However lots of people who claim to act like a subculture, with their dabbling dalliance interest of a hobby behind their glossy veneer, with them predictably ostentatiously socially signalling so by their fashion style, topical repertoire or verbal vernacular, they are often not, well the ones who signal the most often aren’t anyway. Carbon dioxide to all posers!

Back to my earlier point, I do understand the point of some hate speech laws being needed on chat rooms and forums, to prevent trolling, flaming and cyberbullying as well as some rules being needed in real life to keep things friendly, fun and constructive, or whatever word they use online to put it. And I’m not just talking about not being insulting, passive aggressive or tactful but to also go beyond that. You get the picture and can imagine what they say.

I think that what is classified and expected to remain a safe space, can actually counter-intuitively hinder social interaction and pair bonding, if it happens to move so far away to the opposite end of the spectrum towards an extreme. But as they don’t appear to be using any bad words, this goes unnoticed by lots of people. Rather than raise an issue about how things are run, it’s best to just silently leave and go elsewhere, as the chances are, that the majority of people there agree with it being a safe space so you’ll just be outvoted.

You know how people say that if you don’t have anything in common with anyone in the room, or if you feel that you’re the best or worst person in any particular standout aspect, it means that you’re in the wrong room? Well if you’re not free to be yourself, to express an iota of individuality, it also means that you’re in the wrong room.

I’m not really a person who believes that friendship should be a package deal. Just because I’m friends with someone, doesn’t mean that I have to expose them to all my other friends or to introduce them into a particular social circle that I’m in. I feel no obligation, moral duty or altruistic imperative, to introduce a friend from social circle X to social circle Y. Never mind us or them be doing things together, we don’t have to know each other either. Friendship isn’t a package deal and it’s not like six children being all invited to their cousin’s birthday party.

When some people say that, they’re thinking more about permanently ejecting abusive members from their community or the ones who exhibit the most blatantly detectable red flags that remain within the ringleader’s mental litmus paper test. I was thinking more about the subculture standpoint. Although we ideally would not want to be cliquish, we also understand that if we allow

What is Social Gating?

I’m sure that social gating has already existed but someone had to come up with the name for it. We make a distinction between social gating and social barriers. These articles should provide a good starting point.

So about the social gating, to quote the above article, you first have to call what they call the Evaporative Cooling Theory

The people who want to go to the most parties, other people want them to attend the least amount of parties. The people who commit the most exhibitionist and attention seeking behaviours, are the people who other people want to give attention the least to. The people who speak the most, are the people who other people want to hear speak the least.

So if you imagine an enclosure of rings with an outer ring, inner ring and some other inner rings like peeling back an onion, if the needs of the high quality and interesting people are not met, they will eventually and inevitably leave, so then that leaves the 2nd highest quality, until they complain about the declining quality, then the 3rd highest quality

Eventually it’ll reach a point where it’ll be hard to tell who is intelligent, high quality or interesting, as all of the interesting people would of already left.

This flag feature, that should instead be named dispute, is a perfect example of social gating for a Q&A website slash forum. What the flag feature did, is allow the user to select any pre-defined reason for why they think another person’s answer is incomplete, outdated, unclear or with factual inaccuracies. A new comment thread marked as a flagged comment thread, would be automatically created to be assigned the corresponding flag, for the author of the answer to then discuss the issues raised with the person who made the flag.

When the flagging person was happy with how the situation was resolved in the corresponding successive comment thread, they would later REMOVE their flag, for the author to be notified that it had been removed. This was a feature added in, to ensure a level of content quality.

They removed the feature years later from launch day, to prioritise shareholder value over the consumer value and quantity over quality, soon after one founder used their dominant position after buying more shares, to fire the other last founder. Little did they know, that Google Panda would be released in 2012 which would get them demoted and downranked (or what SEO marketers call panda slapped) by Google in the search results.

Well there is a distinction to be made, isn’t there? Of what? Between social gating and social barriers. Allow me to give a quick and speedy explanation.

Social gating

  • Soft requirements. Not everyone who’s in the vicinity will meet all or even most of the requirements.
  • The existence of the meetup or community is promoted via non-mainstream avenues, to ensure that the only people who fill find it, are the type of people who are that way inclined to go looking for it, or are in an adjacent quadrant (on the Eisenhower Matrix). This keeps a lot of posers, saboteurs, money-branchers and snowflakes out, as they’d never find out about it in the first place.
  • When trying to decipher whether a person should be allowed access to join a meetup or community, it is more to do with negative screening where they’re trying to avoid harmful behaviours, than it is about doing positive screening where they’re looking for the elusive glowing behaviours.
  • Tagalongs remain. Members who don’t fit in are to remain in the group yet lessons will be learnt to prevent similar people from ever joining again, most likely by not even finding out about it in the first place
  • Lots of activities which require emotional effort, commitment and personal development, to be fully engaged in, to show you’re fully commited.

Social barriers

  • Hard requirements. You must meet all of the criteria or one less as a borderline pass. No exceptions, well maybe unless you’re so popular and well connected, that you can draw other people in.
  • Everyone knows that the meetup or community exists and everyone knows where to find it, including those not in it with no interest in joining
  • Eligibility testing is done where those who score below the minimum pass criteria after some sort of challenge or some crystalline five minute psychoanalysis, they are instantly denied admission if denied unworthy. (eg. hazing, event promoter)
  • Ejection of members who are found to not fit in
  • Hazing, subject to social humiliation on a peer and individual level

Chronic Venters

You see these people a lot, well if you’re a hermit or socially isolated you will. And even if you’re not, you know that you’ve seen these people periodically in the past at some point anyway. People who just want to vent about their past few weeks and their life issues. That’s all they talk about and that’s it. If you’re wanting them to talk about something remotely interesting or even do some small talk that extends for double the time without proceeding to them venting, then don’t hold your breath.

I have no issue with people venting and talking only about a recap of their life but they don’t want to do anything else. They have no interest in what’s happening in someone else’s life, learning about someone else or even having a friendly and pally conversation about the peculiar nature of life and the moments that define us all.

They are not there to have a conversation, just to have a one-sided therapist. And I don’t mean it becoming more two-sided or a more bipartisan or universally applicable conversation after you’ve fulfilled the role of the makeshift therapist. As once you’ve done with them, after less than ten minutes, they’ll go back to venting and always direct it back to that, even when you try to lead it somewhere else.

Homogenised centric people

They say that we need rules on equality, diversity and inclusion or safe spaces in order to make everyone feel valued and have it inclusive, otherwise people will leave if there’s too much prejudicial, discriminatory and hateful language. Yes but the pendulum can also swing the other way as well.

It’s all very well having rules against discriminatory language and hate speech, for the sake of being tolerant, inclusive and accommodative. But also often in [INSERT ONLINE COMMUNITY HERE] the community can also end up homogenised like oil and water that’s been shaken in a bottle. Having a homogenised place server can scare people away as well.

If you have a bottle of white rice and another one of brown rice then each individual grain is free to hop from bottle to bottle, with both cultures remaining virtually intact. But if you put them both into the same bottle and shake it, then you’ll end up with a homogenised mixture.

So much so, that it’ll be hard to decipher where the white rice ends and where the brown rice begins. Everyone will begin to act the same as each other, with all the distinctive and idiomatic differences of people being cancelled out.

It’s like what they say in Japan. The nail that sticks out the most, gets hammered in first. Anyone that draws too much attention to themselves, causes any sort of commotion or is a bit quirky, they will be made to debase any distinguishing differences to then be another non-descript speck of sand amongst the homogenous group.

If you want to have diversity of opinion, you also need diversity of culture. This even includes the socially acceptable opinions that are deemed to be laudable goals that nobody would bat an eyelid at. Someone who claims that only the contentious, highly disputed and controversial opinion needs to be filtered out, is excessive reductionism and a misleading representation of the situation. So yes, it’s also the laudable and bi-partisan stuff.

And of course this extends past mere opinion, no matter how mundane or bipartisan but even to transcend into the individualism of expressing the syncrasies of your personality.

Example of perfectly normal opinion they’d find offensive

And I don’t mean any controversial or demographic based opinions.

Imagine if the topic was about Taylor Swift complaining that she doesn’t own her masters and that she doesn’t own 100% of the copyright to her music, because her manager Scooter Braun sold it off to some other company. Now imagine if I said that Taylor Swift is living in a fantasy world and that she doesn’t deserve to own 100% of her copyright because she doesn’t write her songs and because the record labels invested a HUGE amount of money into the production, post-production and promotion of her music.

That would be the thing that the autistic community would ban me for saying, if the moderator is a Taylor Swift fan, or even the atheist community if Taylor Swift was lovingly classified and fan-catapulted into the as the New Atheists or Four Horsemen.

It’s common in the music industry for A-List pop singers to adamantly demand that they appear on the songwriting credits, so they can receive more money from royalties. Because the singer is famous and the songwriter is probably relatively unknown and living in poverty, they reluctantly concede, as they feel that they have no other way of making money or breaking into the music industry. Ivors Academy and Muscians Union is currently campaigning against this.

This cheap looking music video cost £10,000 to make

Taylor Swift’s music videos have to cost £100k or £1 million to make. And all the clothes in that video is going to be custom made for that specific video.

And she should own 100% of her copyright? She’s living in an insulated bubble world I bet she’s never edited a CSV or excel file in her life.

And yes, under my HYPOTHETICAL example, I would get banned from some autistic community (discord server/facebook group) for saying. And that’s assuming that I didn’t know that anyone in the chat room liked Taylor Swift and that my point was contextually relevant to the conversation, so I wasn’t saying it to be a spoilsport or smart aleck.

Psychopompous Quote Miners

I don’t like the autistic community online and I see their attitudes and behaviour, to be VERY similar to the atheist community on reddit, facebook groups and Free Thought Blogs. And that applies for anyone else that acts just like them.

To summarise, they have these defining characteristics

  1. They routinely mock others, whilst doing absolutely nothing to improve their own lives and other people’s
  2. They are like an evergreen pest control, as if you actually solved all their problems, they’d run out of stuff to talk about. By evergreen pest control, I mean some pest control guy who visits someone’s house to exterminate some mice, who decides to keep 25% of the mice so they can have a repeat customer, so they can keep eternally solving the same problem, over and over again.
  3. They behave as if they’re exempt from criticism when having their attitudes, behaviour and opinions challenged, whilst the people they criticise, contrastingly do not see themselves as exempt from criticism
  4. They complain about others having logical fallacies and superstitious thinking, while they unintentionally and obliviously have it themselves, it’s just that they’ve shifted it somewhere else.

So even if they are “in the right” about what they’re talking about and factually correct, their behaviour is actually worse than the people they’re criticising, when you weigh up the 4 things.

The atheist community on reddit tends to act like that and wherever else they congregate, like on quora, Free Thought Blogs, facebook groups. And also the autistic community tends to act the same way as the autistic community, using similar behaviours. It’s everywhere online. There’s a hashtag called #actuallyautistic that lots of autistic people use, and you can only use it if you’re autistic, so that way when you read it, you won’t see parents of autistic children posting their blog articles. For much talk about ableism against autistic people within the autistic community, they surely do adopt a “holier than thou” arrogant and condescending attitude whilst chastising their off-key behaviours towards the allistic people. Isn’t that ironic? Or maybe it’s just plain hypocritical.

Just spend enough time observing them online and lurking, not saying a single word, and you think about what I’ve just said, you’ll realise that it’s TRUE!!!!! Whether they’re like that in the real world, I’ll let you decide.

That’s a deferred authority I’ll happily antithetically reject

They claim to be an expert about everything and that you cannot know any more about them about themselves as they are themselves yet when you try to explain to them what they haven’t considered about the world, they claim that there’s no way you could have known it, as nobody else has studied about the world as much as they have.

Who are they to claim that they’ve not studied any more you or overlooked any less than you? And we’re supposed to trust a person who claims to be a deferred authority, whose opinion should always be requested first and given collective veto rights last, for having the most scholarly knowledge about every topic, to be the sacrosanct philosophical preacher who surely shall dictate and influence what naive, solipsistic, ignorant and vulnerable people do with their life?

Sorry but they are not of the mentally stable mind and level headed rationale, to be telling me what I do with my life. And that’s not me being hypocritical, it’s them refusing to reconcile or even be receptive to listening about their cognitive dissonance when I point it out. That’s even before I break down whatever else I have a problem with their opinions.#

Let me know what decisions they’re making to help overcome the problems in their life – that we all know finance and fraud fluent except for them and their competing flurry of sycophants – so we can have a nice long laugh at their most destructive and ridiculous solutions for the most minutaé doctorate of problems while we get drunk at the bar.

Also they make awful and soul crushing managers

To make it worse they ALSO have the

  • Party line
  • Top-down heavy

So you don’t have the freedom to exercise your “personal discretion” or “circumstantial exemptions” when it comes to things. You must agree with the ringleader’s opinion at ALL times like the (political) party line. You could agree with 90% or 99% of the ringleader’s opinions but if you disagree with 1% then it’s the most egregious of transgressions, no matter how anodyne or benign the behaviour is. That’s the party line for you!

And because they’re top-down heavy you cannot delegate or judge things based on the circumstances of the situation. It’s always the logical fallacy of “you’re either with us or against us”. There is no middle ground, no grey area morality. They call that a false dilemma logical fallacy. God help you if you’re subjected to them as your assigned public sector authority, if they naturally and intrinsically do not respect the decentralised authority that a democracy affords us, despite it personally benefiting them to give them access to privileged information that they’ll predictably abuse with a data over-reach. They’ll always find a way to centralise power using the bureaucratic and regulatory means, if the constitution or Case Law denies them that right.

If you disagree, you can tone police yourself all you want but it’ll be to no avail. You can appease them but you cannot placate them, no matter how many apologies you give for your past behaviour. Why would you expect anything else?

Not everything should be about you, as much as you think it should

When was the last time you heard the following phrase?

Nothing about us, without us.

It all sounds nice and rosy and well meaning but when such arguments are used to show that society isn’t being accommodating to such people, you have to ask yourself whether the advice and help that group X needs is similar or analogous to what group Y would need. Imagine something like this….

  • Wheelchair ramp
  • Ordinance Survey map
  • Flourescent jacket for bike riders

I was speaking hypothetically of course. What if the accommodations and help someone needs, hasn’t got anything to do with making society accommodate for them in the absence of them changing their typical behaviours, like a wheelchair ramp but instead about giving someone new knowledge like some sort of decoder with a wealth of additional information beyond the current context, like some DK Dorling Kindersley book by how comprehensive it is. There is no need to make anything instantaneously jump out the page, like a billboard advert that you cannot ignore.

So when it comes to when people say things like that, which those Psychopompous Quote Miners often do, they expect it to be the ramp, all day every day. They couldn’t be more wrong if they tried!

Other people don’t always have to change when there’s information you’re ignorant of and could use. But if you have some blind spot or shortcoming that would reasonably prevent you from typically doing so, then given how there are some forms of “freedom of association” which we cannot fully regulate due to human rights laws, like who we should be friends with or dating, then it’s only fair that we try to make people as best adjusted them to this unfair world.

That would be the most fair thing to do, when they keep going on about how to go about achieving the same thing for years that evades their clutches, how much they’d like to achieve and acquire it when they speak about how they are currently proactively try to do so, rather than have someone else be sugarcoating and mollycoddling them. When all is said and done, well the government definitely isn’t making Cathy Castillo agree to becoming my friend or stop saying that perplexingly weird and annoying thing she always talks about, in the same way they can force a christian fundamentalist into baking a homosexual cake.

The special snowflake as if the whole world revolves around them. If they are offended or uncomfortable by something, or even lesser, perplexed or alienated by someone when trying to make friends or understand the instructions to get work done, they expect everyone around them to change, so all the planets have to change their gravitational orbit while they remain consistently fixed in the same space from the same observation point. When trying to motivate someone else to do something, like a horse, do you use the carrot or the stick? Who said that you have to hold it in front of their face, why not your face, if you’re a snowflake? The hotel has a hundred rooms and they aren’t adding Room 101 if all the rooms are exhausted. Dare to randomise a batch of one hundred new sudoku puzzles again?

Some liberal feminist tried to get me cancelled

I remember reading a blog article by a TERF where some TRA had sent a PDF dossier to her employer, university and media industry contacts, which resulted in her getting cancelled. What the TRA did after disagreeing with her in a twitter argument about some gender stuff, is that she’d started getting a subscription for every piece of content she wrote, including tweets, for two years. They had compiled all of this into a dossier, that when looked at individually on its own merits, it seemed laudable and maybe bipartisan but when combined all into one PDF file, it looked really bad on her part, making her look like a transphobic bigot. Do you see what happened there? They call it quote mining. I’ll add a source of the article later.

Some liberal feminist tried to get me cancelled when I was 19, by spending over five hours quote mining me, to find things that looked sexist, so they could get me censored, cancelled, whatever and ultimately damage my reputation. It was obvious that she’d love to deliberately mis-represent and selectively quote my words, to push whatever social engineering agenda she wanted to push. Luckily it didn’t work as she couldn’t find anything.

I’ve never really wanted to express my opinion political commentary or on the controversial or hot button Culture War issues of the day. I never wanted to do a weekly roundup either to review all the events that happened in the last seven days, I’ll leave that to The Spectator and New Statesman. All I wanted to do is focus more on the sociology side of social commentary, well functionalism and market theory to be specific. Does threat models fall under market theory or is it a separate subset? I don’t know. Well what I do know, is that I only wanted to focus on that side and writing my non-fiction book that steered away from what I didn’t want to initially focus on. It was other people who asked me of their own accord for my opinion. I wouldn’t of said it, if they’d never asked. In fact, most of my blog articles don’t really talk about those things. And my books don’t either.

What is lost on her, is that the men who are a self declared male feminist who are oestaneously parroting it around for some brownie points, without any prior contextually sensitive precursor to it, they’re the ones who are compensating for their crappy behaviour and crappy attitudes, who’ll be the ones who’ll be committing domestic abuse towards women or some legal yet sue-worthy behaviour that would leave someone metoo’ed over in 2023. It is the men who are calling women bitches and sluts, who’ll have the most healthiest, reciprocal and respectful relationships with women, as they’ll be no sudden surprises like Uber surge charge billing in peak hours, so you know where you stand and they’ll respect your agency and perspective too.

Psychopomous Quote Miners and Begrudging Other People’s Success, Goes Hand In Hand

Well as those Psychopompous Quote Miners are prevalent on reddit for the autistic and atheist community, then it’s easy to see why they’d feel at home on reddit, as reddit is a website that their userbase begrudges other people’s success. So it’s two sides of the same coin. It goes hand in hand.

The number one problem I have with reddit, minus the censorship, is that they begrudge everyone’s success, no matter how small it is, no matter how temporary it is, even if their life issues eclipse and far outweight their stated merits. For example….

If someone posts on r/penmanshipporn about their calligraphy writing using a fountain pen and a quill, it’ll get lots of upvotes. But if someone posts their fancy or neat handwriting, that is their NATURAL handwriting, it’ll get downvotes and insults and passive aggressive style hate comments.

If someone posts about getting a new job flipping burgers for mcdonalds for minimum wage, they’ll congratulate that person but if they make a thread saying they came up with an original strategy to make £100 a month from sports betting, for 2-10 hours a week as a BEGINNER, it’ll get lots of hate comments and people telling them get a real job.

So even if Reddit wasn’t censoring all the time, including powermods where 8 moderators control the top 100 subreddits (whilst using multiple accounts to prevent you from noticing this fact) and with its admins (paid employees) who replace user elected moderators with paid employee appointed ones, I still wouldn’t use it anyway.

They love using superfluously fancy words whilst bragging about their PHD

Typical of guardianista behaviour behaviour, a liberal yet relatively pluralistic newspaper for middle class hipsters drinking chai latté at Pret, they love using superflorously fancy words so they can look down and show that they’re better than people who read sensationalist tabloids, with its hedonistic, depraved, vacuous and sensation seeking behaviour that guardianistas are too sophisticated to commit or even glance their nose about.

This reminds me of those, no not those guardianistas but instead how doctors with a PHD, ahem, bachelors degree, medical degree and an accreditation, why I don’t like them. It sounds similar to the same sorts of behaviours that those Psychopomous Quote Miners do, unless they are very into complementary therapies, mindfulness, reiki, fancy witch crystals and organic food. Doctors think that because they have all of that, well a degree, that they’re more intelligent than you and that you cannot know more about how your symptoms are presenting or manifesting, more than you do.

What I say to that, is that the skills needed to gain a degree is more like a car mechanic who follows a flowchart method that is very standardised like writing academic essays and doing rote learning to remember factoids. However in the real world, being a doctor is more like being a school teacher as you have to learn how to be an intuitive learner who can think on-the-fly at the heat of the moment.

The skills needed before gaining that degree is completely different than the skills utilised once acquired the degree, analogous to comparing a car mechanic to a school teacher. Just because you’re good at writing essays, doesn’t mean that you’ll be a good teacher. However this is lost on the doctors as despite their PHD and mortgage money, they’re not intelligent enough to figure that out. Well there’s more types of intelligence than just being academic or book-smart. In the UK, we would call that “going by the book” or just “ticking boxes”.

Well those Psychopomous Quote Miners are always co-adopting counselling terminology like deflecting, co-dependency, closure, insecure attachment – so they can appear to be more intelligent than they actually are. The more obtuse their language is and the more peppered with fancy terminology, the more intelligent they appear, at least to their flurry of sycophants.

Conclusion

So that’s my opinion about why open-air environments tend to eventually become counter-productive, like trying to throw darts at a sponge instead of a chalkboard. The chalkboard will eventually and inevitably become a sponge. We can see the three types of outcomes that would typically happen.

  • Chronic venters
  • Homogenised centric
  • Psychopompous Quote Miners

As far as subcultures are concerned, I can see why they’ve switched from being open-air environments to a closed box environment like a shoebox, where anyone cannot easily enter or leave, as easily as they would for the alternative.

They want to talk about safe spaces being good and about how we need to prevent trolling, flaming and cyberbullying or whatever else they say happens in the real world (I don’t really read much of those blogs), whatever the specific words they use beyond the uneducated guess. But have you seen how your seemingly idyllic safe space ends up? Eventually it reaches a point where everyone feels they’re stepping on eggshells or that there’s no sense of identity like some Now Music 50 compilation like some DJ Khaled album. It’s not too many cooks spoil the broth but nobody chats speedily on inspection day.

How much of a safe space does a safe space have to be, before a blackboard turns into a sponge? They’ll be no nauseatingly screeching sounds but nothing can fall off if there was nothing to tack on either, unless you meticulously plan everything in advance within the canteen table. Within a greater degree, maybe that’s what they want. I would think so, based on part three of this series.

Related Posts