Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The internet has definitely hyped some of that up, some of the stuff always existed but the interconnection and reinforcement of many things has definitely grown with the internet, particularly as hype machines and people's own self selections intensify.

We're definitely complicated creatures adapted by evolution to an environment that was dramatically different than what we are facing in the modern world.

I just recently heard a psychologist (healthy grain of salt here) talking about how we have evolved to be able to deal with about 250 different relationships with people (so basically a tribe). And then the internet hits. Strange and interesting social phenomena are inevitable. I wonder if the humans that grew up completely post-internet will be the most different kind of humans psychologically and socially that our species has ever generated.

 jasper76 wrote:
Perhaps the explosion of the internet has either changed things, or laid things bare that were once hidden. The internet was just becoming available to the average Joe when I was in my late college years. It seems to me that before that, the focus on the self and ones identifying features did not seem as extreme as what it has become since then.

Wars over soccer games, riots over "my side lost the election", etc. We've always focused on ourselves and our identifying features.

To me it seems that one of the things about the internet, and this has been mentioned before, is that we are no longer just members of our local communities, but part of this worldwide community of all inherent connected people where we are drowned and dehumanized due to the overwhelming volume of participants, and perhaps people are finding more and more granular ways to differentiate themselves from the uber-herd.

IMO it's the exact opposite. The internet creates unity, not division. Instead of being the only {identity} in your area and feeling alone you can connect with similar people through the internet. The only separation effect is that people who get poor treatment over who they are have a greater ability to express those identities instead of keeping everything hidden, and feel less pressured to participate in a culture that hates them.

While we are certainly more connected with each other in terms of ability to communicate, I can't say that I think we're more unified. Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.

I'd grant that individual interest groups or "tribes" are more unified now due to the internet, but not that humans as a species are.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO it's the exact opposite. The internet creates unity, not division. Instead of being the only {identity} in your area and feeling alone you can connect with similar people through the internet. The only separation effect is that people who get poor treatment over who they are have a greater ability to express those identities instead of keeping everything hidden, and feel less pressured to participate in a culture that hates them.

I'll say that in fact, it creates both. You see groups of every kind of things poppin up on the internet, but just as those groups appear, you see them fighting with other groups, even for just stupid reasons.

For example, hmm... furrys? You know. Many people have been conected by that, but at the same time a big division has erupted between furrys and anti-furrys.

 jasper76 wrote:
Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.

And this is why, despite your "this is not US politics, mods do not lock" reply, my initial comment about identity politics was correct. You seem to have bought into the idea that "identity politics" is a new thing instead of just a new label for "people who I disagree with". And you're also missing the fact that those political and social divisions have their roots in issues that go back decades. What we're seeing in 2017 is just the natural outcome of well-established trends, not something that just came up out of nowhere.

I'd grant that individual interest groups or "tribes" are more unified now due to the internet, but not that humans as a species are.

Of course humans as a species are more unified. Before the internet there was essentially zero unity, simply because you'd never interact with anyone outside of your local community. The vast improvements in communication the internet offers far more than offset anything else, if you're talking about humanity as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I'll say that in fact, it creates both. You see groups of every kind of things poppin up on the internet, but just as those groups appear, you see them fighting with other groups, even for just stupid reasons.

You mean like the "RAR MY SPORTSBALL TEAM IS BETTER THAN YOURS" conflicts that have existed since long before the internet?

For example, hmm... furrys? You know. Many people have been conected by that, but at the same time a big division has erupted between furrys and anti-furrys.

That's not a good example at all. Furries receive the same "eww, gross/burn in hell you filthy sinner" reactions that have been aimed at people with unconventional sexual preferences since long before the internet existed (just ask any LGBT people who were around back then). The internet hasn't created those feelings, it has only given them a visible target instead of having the furries repressing and hiding because they have nowhere to be themselves. The only difference is that now the anti-furry hate is visible to more people, and revealing ugly divisions to the general public is not the same thing as creating them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.

And this is why, despite your "this is not US politics, mods do not lock" reply, my initial comment about identity politics was correct. You seem to have bought into the idea that "identity politics" is a new thing instead of just a new label for "people who I disagree with". And you're also missing the fact that those political and social divisions have their roots in issues that go back decades. What we're seeing in 2017 is just the natural outcome of well-established trends, not something that just came up out of nowhere.

I'm not the one expounding on the subject of identity politics, and would rather this thread remain on the subject of identity as a broader concept. I don't mind talking about identity politics in a separate thread, but I'm afraid if we go down that rabbit hole this thread will inevitably get locked due the strong feeling the particular subject of identity politics elicits from all sides. In case you hadn't noticed, the mods have become pretty aggressive when it comes to moderating hot button subjects related to US politics, and identity politics is a big one.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm not the one expounding on the subject of identity politics, and would rather this thread remain on the subject of identity as a broader concept. I don't mind talking about identity politics in a separate thread, but I'm afraid if we go down that rabbit hole this thread will inevitably get locked due the strong feeling the particular subject of identity politics elicits from all sides. In case you hadn't noticed, the mods have become pretty aggressive when it comes to moderating hot button subjects related to US politics, and identity politics is a big one.

And that's the problem. You're clearly thinking about "identity politics", but you're trying to hide it by talking about identity in general. And identity in general is way too broad and meaningless of a concept to have any useful discussion. So we're reduced to trying to talk about identity politics without ever saying those words and getting moderator attention, which is just plain ridiculous.

Nice Crystal ball there, Peregrine. On second thought, just do what you want...I don't much care if this thread dies TBH. Maybe you'll catch a fish with that line you are casting.

Narcissism is always bad. When people hold their own identity as paramount to others well-being, then you have problem. When this concept is applied through mass media and group reinforcement, then you have a pandemic.

You are correct Peregrine, my use of the word "Creates" was badly used. Probably a more correct term to what I think it that its makes them more numerous.

But I think that as you said, it isn't creating them, it just give different aspects of people a pedestal to be shown to the world, and as always, in the world theres always hate to give to everything

 jasper76 wrote:
Nice Crystal ball there, Peregrine. On second thought, just do what you want...I don't much care if this thread dies TBH. Maybe you'll catch a fish with that line you are casting.

Oh please, we're at thinly-veiled accusations of trolling now? I don't need a crystal ball when you have explicitly said, in this thread, that you're heavily influenced by US political and social divisions. IOW, "identity politics".

 Peregrine wrote:
...So we're reduced to trying to talk about identity politics without ever saying those words and getting moderator attention...

Too late!

EVERYONE:

This thread is now on a Watch List.

Pay close attention to RULE #1 and RULE #2.

And if it gets too political in here, well...

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh please, we're at thinly-veiled accusations of trolling now?

There was never really a need to even make an accusation, TBH

Off-topic.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And if it gets too political in here, well...

Can you just lock the thread now then, instead of the absurdity of trying to talk about something obviously related to US politics (as the OP has stated explicitly) without it getting "too political"? Or, better, get rid of the ban on US politics so we can have reasonable discussions again?

The proliferation of "NOT-us politic threads" and how everyone just want excuses to bring politics to other offtopics threads is a proof of that

Sadly, the OT still doesn't deserve that privilege.

Off-topic.

If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.

To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Sadly, the OT still doesn't deserve that privilege.

It's not about deserving or not, it's about keeping the mess under control. It's happened on other forums that try to ban politics, and it's happening here. You either allow politics and try to keep it to designated threads/forum sections, or you keep getting ridiculous threads like this one where people post thinly-veiled political content and everyone tries to discuss it while pretending that it isn't politics, until the thread is finally locked for being obviously a political discussion. Repeat over and over again, because most of the interesting stuff to talk about is related to politics. The only alternative to allowing political discussion is to limit the off-topic sections to inane thread after inane thread on bland topics like "what's your favorite movie", with everything else being immediately locked before it can turn political.

Obviously I'm not the one making the decision here, but I can tell you that the current policy is not going to work. You need to just accept that politics exists, accept that the threads are going to be a mess, and keep it in designated politics threads where anyone who doesn't want to get involved can just ignore it.

Funny, but I've been a member of plenty of forums that have a blanket ban on politics and religion. And those forums got along just fine. And as long as the mods and admins on said forums were on their toes, things were relatively peaceful and less contentious.


Political discussion, specifically U.S. politics, only works on forums that lean largely one way or the other, and caters to the interests of people that will lean in a certain direction. Forums like this one, where people will have widely divergent views on politics, social issues, and religion, are a potential storm every other thread. Especially with the strict rules regarding (and what constitutes) "polite" behavior and today's volatile social climate.


Personally, I wouldn't care if discussion of U.S. politics and religion in general were banned from Dakka Off-Topic.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.

To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.

To be fairer, this the same persons personal dead horse, and they brought it up constantly wherever they could but the real concern is for the English language and all those monsters who keep using definitions other than the ones said person demands they use, lest English be ruined forever

 LordofHats wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.

To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.

To be fairer, this the same persons personal dead horse, and they brought it up constantly wherever they could but the real concern is for the English language and all those monsters who keep using definitions other than the ones said person demands they use, lest English be ruined forever

To be even fairer, he's not the only in this thread that loves to pummel dead horses

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.

To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.

I see you shop at the same crystal ball store as Peregrine and Lord of Hats. Where can I get one of those?

You know, I examined my topic post history on OT, since it seems you did the same. I can't find the "nearly identical thread" you are referring to...

Links or it didn't happen.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread

The observation that a thread talking about identity politics is intrinsically a discussion on US politics is one I agree with, FWIW - and I think it's evident by the page and a half of people asking what exactly the OP meant in the OP, because of course, if he hadn't been oblique, it would have been locked.

Since it seems so difficult for a few people here to separate the concept of "identity" with the concept of "identity politics", perhaps I should provide some definitions as to how I am using the terms as distinct from one another.

Identity - condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is; the qualities, beliefs, etc., that distinguish or identify a person or thing:

identity politics - political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.

I hope this is helpful.

The Greeks had this stuff figured out centuries ago. It is just the Golden Mean. Nothing to extremes and keep in moderation.

Those delightful Pagans had it figured out before that even: "an it harm none do what ye will".

If I feel like living my life as a small dog named Colin, it should only be a problem for other people if I take it upon myself to start biting the mailman.

I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I don't really understand that US politics ban.

The ban is in place because the last 3 or 4 got too heated, took too much time for the moderators, and was often not very constructive conversation.

"Not worth our fething moderating time, so you can't have it!" is the reason, and I don't blame them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)

I can't say I understand it much either, but even a thread on the subject of the US Politics ban got locked in Nuts and Bolts, so the anti-US Politics members of the mod community are on high alert, and maybe it's not such a great idea to turn this thread into a "Why can't we discuss US Politics" thread.