What is the nature of a "virtual community"?
The word "community" has been borrowed from pre-internet days, and is being used to describe a phenomenon that is distinctly different in kind. Caucus99perrcent (like its parent DailyKos) is a virtual community, as distinct from an actual community.
Human beings can neither know one another nor interact with one another fully (nor even largely) by the sole means of exchanging electronic squiggles on a monitor screen. Virtual communication is not physical communication, it merely resembles, imitates, imagines, or depicts physical communication. The former is a reduced, augmented, or filtered version of the latter - though it pretends to be superior on account of its speed and ease of execution.
Human beings are not primarily intellectual beings, we are primarily physical beings, sharing a primarily physical universe, which is all too often, all too real. So that to converse with one another as we do here, on a purely intellectual plane, is to bypass in large part the actuality of our individual physical realities, and to form instead an imaginary, or "virtual" community.
A real or actual community requires physical proximity, and physical, face-to-face interaction. It is different in kind from "virtual" communities. Whatever the virtues of online communication might be, they have not contributed much to the building of actual communities.
All of which is not to say that caucus99percent is not a valuable and possibly essential forum for exchanging highly relevant, counter-cultural ideas. I believe it is that, and maybe more. But I don't think of it as a "communiity"' in any real, or lasting sense.
As seems to be the custom here, I welcome contrary viewpoints.
Comments
I think you have a point
The word "community" is overused. If a "community" is made up entirely of people you don't know, then maybe it's a stretch to call it a community. But we still can put our ideas out there for discussion.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Intellectual communities of letters
are as old as civilization itself.
It doesn't matter to the Royal Society whether all of the scientists, philosophers, naturalists, etc. ever actually meet face to face. The group is defined by its correspondence and papers.
And sure, we're not the Royal Society by any stretch, but there is still much value to be had in communities of letters, regardless of the actual physical interaction.
Fixed it for you:
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I absolutely agree with this, too!
(Do I contradict myself? Well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes...)
Thing is, though, the word "community" when not modified by "of letters" or a specific intent like The Royal Society of British Horticulturists, implies a lot more than a community of letters.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A community of letters...?
OK, I can grant that our various left-ish political perspectives, freely if somewhat wantonly expressed, are something resembling a community of letters... but I would describe it more as a similarity of opinion, in the sense that like attracts like, and far more political than literate.
It seems to me that such online "communities" tend to think very highly of themselves, and that they tend to reject anyone whose ideas might disrupt their perceived solidarity. An agenda does not a community make. A collective (virtual) attack on Hillary Clinton and the Powers she represents might be a very worthwhile endeavor, but it doesn't constitute a community, neither of letters nor of any other kind.
My objection primarily is to the use of the word "community" to describe what is (virtually) going on here and elsewhere.. It tends to delimit and define what might be a broader spectrum of opinion, and to obfuscate the difference between an actual community and a virtual community.
native
You've got it backwards.
Agenda doesn't make the community.
The community makes the agenda.
We don't need our mutual dislike of Hillary to stay together.
A lot of us around here go back a lot farther than just this website, and while the present day focus may change with the news cycle, over the years our mutual respect, admiration, and often affection for each other hasn't.
c99 is an organic and evolving collection of like minded people who share common goals and interests.
If that isn't a community, then I don't know what is.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I don't think "broader spectrum of opinion,"
good though it might be, has anything necessarily to do with whether or not something is a "community," good though it might be.
It's like love and marriage. Often together? Yes, but there are plenty of marriages without love and plenty of loves without marriage. Presence of one doesn't determine the existence of the other. These are independent factors.
That said, I think communities of choice--where people decide whether to become part of them or not--are far likelier to be comprised of people who have similarities of opinion and taste than communities you inherit (like an extended family or a town your family has lived in for seven generations).
Again, I don't necessarily see that either of these is better than the other.
As for Caucus99, I agree that we haven't been at our very best over the past ten weeks, but who would be? We took a very ugly defeat from a very ugly system, which has been dumping very ugly propaganda on our heads at an increased rate, lately, including through the mouth of someone many of us respected a great deal. Many of us are exhausted or demoralized, and all of us lack direction, in the sense that we don't know where to go or what to do.
So we come here and get what support we can from like-minded others. Is it a community? I'd say, not yet, but it could become one. Does it need to have less "similarity of opinion" in order to be a community? No. There have been plenty of communities in human history that have far less differences of opinion than this one.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
In other words--
These are two different concerns, not necessarily linked:
It tends to delimit and define what might be a broader spectrum of opinion, and to obfuscate the difference between an actual community and a virtual community.
The first part of your sentence "delimit and define a broader spectrum of opinion" and the latter "obfuscate the difference between an actual community and a virtual community" don't go together. They are two very separate concerns. The latter concerns me. The former absolutely doesn't, mainly because I don't actually care whether people who at this point support Hillary Clinton join this community or not. They can be here--if they are here, they should come here knowing that lots of people are going to disagree with them. They can not be here. That's fine too.
Now, if you tell me "*I* support Hillary Clinton right now!" then my statement will come back to bite me in the butt, because, obviously, I do care about people who have been in conversation with me, off and on, for years, like you, and losing them is sad. But if you're talking about people I don't know yet--my above paragraph stands.
And if you're talking about people I do know, who might leave because there's so much unified dislike of Hillary Clinton here, then do I care?--yes, absolutely, as I think I proved a little while ago when one of the members left the site. But caring does not imply that I feel responsibility, or self-blame, or site-blame, for such departures; anybody who comes here not knowing that this is a place filled with people who oppose Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the general trend of American politics would find it out very fast, and if that's not what they want, there's about a thousand places on the Internet where they can be in a majority-Hillary-supporter site.
I am very disturbed by the meme that has crept into left-of-center groups (I'm avoiding the word "communities" for now), that coming together with people who share similar views is somehow bad, or oppressive, or not kind, or not human, or not a real social gesture.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm actually a wizened old Oak, with one large branch taken
down for the construction of The Royal George.
but I appreciate the acorns growing beyond my sight.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
It is a community to me.
Perhaps I'm being too individualistic as I can only answer for myself and feel kind of selfish about everyone here being a sort of friend of mine, but I come here to interact with the other voices here. I love reading what they have to say and I love commenting when it feels right to me, but the best part is that I learn so much from everyone.
Do I wish I knew everyone in person? Of course! Someday, I may meet a few and will then have a face to a name. My community will be enhanced by that interaction.
I work in a large university. I don't know everyone I interact with and never will, but it is my work community. Sometimes I meet these folks and my work community becomes enhanced from it.
I was adopted as a baby. I've decided to search for my people, my community. I want to know where I come from. I've received news that my mother was native. I'm blown away by this news. Now there's a community I hope embraces me when I find them. If they don't, I will still consider them my community because I'll know where I came from.
Yes, to me, this is a community. It is one of my many communities.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It's parent Daily Kos?
I wouldn't describe c99 as the child of Daily Kos. Quite a few DKos former members are here, but that was never the original intent of the site.
I agree with you, edg
DK may have introduced us to each other, but I don't feel that this site has any connection to DK.
I'm glad to see so many members from there, especially since we seem to a lot in common including what the word progressive means unlike DK, but that is where the commonality ends.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
"parent" my ass!
And there are quite a few of us whose involvement here began completely independently of our involvement (or not) over there.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I agree, in general,
but also think that very intense connections, of a different kind, can be formed merely through the exchange of words.
However, you are absolutely right that those connections are not the same as IRL community and, IMO, can't serve all of the same needs.
For instance, planning and taking action seems to me far more difficult online than off; there's a much more fertile field for misunderstanding when we don't have non-verbal cues; on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, which means that there's also a fertile field for sockpuppetry and other bad faith.
None of this should be taken to mean that I don't appreciate Caucus for what it gives--there's a reason the lifeboat is our image.
But IRL connections would strengthen our virtual community and add a layer which would make it more powerful, IMO.
IRL=In Real Life, old-fashioned internet shorthand for meatspace
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, after a famous disagreement,
didn't speak or meet. Eventually they resumed a frequent correspondence which ended on or near their deaths.
I have found these blog sites, especially with members who have read each other's thoughts and exchanges, can become groups around a subject such as the environment or critters or quilts, and sometimes when there is critical mass, meet in real life.
It seems to be a natural progression and a true desire for connection. The online communities on DKos saw us through some of our darkest days and they showed up to give us comfort and real help. That is the loss that is the true tragedy of what the owner blew up over there. And for some, the cause of real grief.
Some online groups are formed for support of people with illnesses, for comfort and sharing of information. There are many, and as such people find those of like mind.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
I agree that calling DKos our "parent"
doesn't seem quite right.
An abusive parent, maybe, but I never felt infantilized in relation to DK, and don't feel this site is its progeny.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
DailyKos was not
all that abusive, until recently. And it was my parent, in terms of my online interactivity. Credit where credit is due, sez me.
native
For me, it started in about 2010, with the public option.
That was the beginning of the end. By 2011, the site was splitting over whether or not we owed Barack Obama unquestioning loyalty, and whether withholding such loyalty was racist. By 2012, there were groups of people organizing outside the site, on FB and elsewhere, who made concerted attacks on particular diaries and diarists--often character attacks, often accusations of racism. Markos' indulgence of that practice, and the fact that some people had free rein and others did not, made the whole thing get uglier. By the time I left, DKos had begun to resemble a school where the bullies are actually the favorites of the principal and teachers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Given that it ended, for me, with
a user whose telling of her rape story elicited a swarm like the one I described bullying her, to the point of telling her she made the whole story up, which left me staring at the screen with tears rolling down my face--not a regular occurrence for me--yeah, I think it was that abusive. I think that was in either 2013 or 2014. Don't know if that's what you mean by "recently."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It is more of a community
than most so called communities in modern society.
Spawned, perhaps?
I more or less consider c99 spawned from TOP. Also, I consider myself somewhat of an exile ... or perhaps a prisoner escaped.
There you go,
an expatriot perhaps.
native
Depends on what the definition of is is.
We resemble a community. Some of us commune with some more just like IRL. I refuse to be parented by dkos. We were once referred to as little ToP. I think we resemble that too. 2.0 and so much better.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
A big improvement to be sure,
but we don't want to repeat the mistakes of our progenitors, if we can possibly avoid them. Group-think being one of the hardest to overcome.
native
I said
We are no spawn of that mindless propaganda pit that routinely cannibalized its "community" for sport. One day it is tears and alms for the poor among them, the next it is the grammar police burning the same souls at the stake for misuse of a comma. I vaguely remember you from there, so you know perfectly well what I am talking about. Whether any virtual place is a community or not is incidental to me, but I strongly object to being spawn of the GOS.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
In my opinion, this is an extremely misplaced concern
for the current conditions.
You basically have a decimated Left in this country, whether you're talking about liberals, social democrats, socialists, or left-wing anarchists. Nobody left of Hillary Clinton has a voice in American politics or public policy. There are large numbers of people whose views have no vehicle. And this is one of the few places where the bare beginnings of such a vehicle might begin to be built. Maybe, is beginning to be built.
I used the word "Left," but the fact is that what I'm really talking about is opposition to neoliberalism and neoconservatism. This is a place where people who oppose those things gather. I'm not interested in trying to bring in people who support those things, or people who don't understand that we're in a corrupt system that is killing us. Neither am I interested in preventing them from being here. They can come here. Then they will run up against the beliefs that the majority here holds. Then it's their choice whether to remain, in disagreement, or to leave and find a place where they can be in agreement.
I have not seen the kinds of swarming and bullying here that made DKos such a rank place to be. If you have, you should definitely talk to the mods, because that's unacceptable. However, if what you're saying is that people will come here and be uncomfortable with the fact that the majority disagrees with them--then isn't that *their* discomfort with difference that causes them to leave?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well shit, I was going to invite everybody to dinner
now you've ruined it.
Sorry Al,
I guess I'm just an inveterate party-pooper. It might be on account of my ancestors, a bunch of UE Loyalists who never wanted anything to do with the USA in the first place.
native
What does “UE” stand for? n/t
probably for the EU in another language
Well...let me retort...
Posting a nothing burger of an essay that is lite on definition, description, intellectual thought, and well, devoid, as people from TOS might say "reality", let me just post this video, to express how your nothing burger of an essay makes me "feel" about what you "think" about C99p, not to mention comparing us to DK. WTF?
[video:https://youtu.be/ZpUYjpKg9KY align:center]
How's that for emotion?
While you might not "think" of C99p as a community, What I found, at least according to Dictionary.Com:
I might be a dumb ass Texan, but I can certainly find where this "definition" of community, at least according to how Dictionary.com defines it, fits with C99p. #3, #4, #5, #7 (joint enjoyment), #8 and #9, at least as far as this uneducated country bumpkin can figure.
If you're going to come here to C99p, and post shit like this, you'll never "experience" the "emotional / intellectual / spiritual", connection to this "community", I and many others "experience".
But hey, that's my two cents.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
More than two cents,
I'd say you're putting all your chips on the table. Good for you, that's what ranting roosters do.
You've provided nine definitions for the word "community" - shall we argue about which of them is the most correct? No. If you think C99p constitutes an actual "community" then for you, it does. For me, it does not - and it's as simple as that.
But I have a question for you Mr Rooster: Should my somewhat critical opinion of this community - if indeed it is a community, and not a mere forum - disqualify me (in your opinion) from participation in it? If I fail to fully experience the "emotional / intellectual / spiritual connection" that you do, must my viewpoint be disregarded entirely, and consigned to the category of being "shit"?
native
It depends on what your motives and your actions here actually
are.
If you are here primarily to stir up shit, and by that I mean post words that are intended to have us chase after some shiny and argue among ourselves, then I for one would not be sad to see you go. I would not define such actions as "participation", personally. I would define such actions as those of a troll.
~OaWN
A troll... hmmm.
Yes perhaps that is what I am, depending on how you define a troll. My voice is not regularly harmonious in any chorale. I'm atonal most of the way. As for the intentions of my words, they are liable to change from day to day. Or minute to minute if truth be told. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm here primarily to stir up shit, but I must confess that I do enjoy stirring up shit.
It's not that I'm trying to wreck the place, just to make it more interesting. I get bored with all the Hillary-bashing. I couldn't care less if she has pneumonia or whatever.
native
I care a lot less about the health issue than many here
and I would like a greater diversity of *material* on the site, certainly--there we're in complete agreement.
The problem is that to get that greater diversity, more of us need to write and create content. And that means work. I have about 5 essays in the queue, but that means dragging myself away from commenting in others' diaries--which is a hell of a lot easier--and actually doing the work.
It also means being less distracted by meta fights than I am.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
In order to make it not a Hillary Health Lies site
people need to write and publish more stuff, and go into diaries that are not Hillary Health diaries and give them some love. It's as simple as that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nope.
So far as I know, only one person has been banned from here because of their beliefs.
That would be the Men's Rights guy. The admins and mods decided that the men's rights movement was damaging and not civil, and I agree, just as I'd have a problem with a White Power advocate.
So are there boundaries? Yes. Do those boundaries exclude you? Not according to me.
Do they exclude you according to you?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Actually...
I was holding back. I will concede my two cents worth was maybe more like a nickle's worth, but no worries, trust me, I could be a lot more verbose.
Diverse viewpoints are most welcome, but your nothing burger essay, because your bored and want to poke the hornet's nest, well, belong with all the "Hillary is gonna need adult diapers, oh no" or the "it was an inside job, no it wasn't, was so, was not," kind of nothing burger essays (tabloid click bait, which is about all TOS has become), which, to me, are nothing more than distraction, imho.
My question for you is, do you think it's okay to go into someone's living room, take a dump, and then complain that you don't feel welcome? Do you think taking a dump in someone's living room is going to engender any type of "connection" to a community, virtual or otherwise?
[video:https://youtu.be/3j3_iPskjxk align:center]
You might get a response....
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
It doesn't really matter
what you call it, but it is a community of like minded people for the most part and even though we don't agree on everything we still keep coming back.Even though it is mostly political I think it goes beyond that, I believe it is the kind of people we are that brings us together. I come from a large family and have too many friends, but I still enjoy being involved here in whatever you want to call it.
I'm not sure what the goal of this essay is, if it even has one.
And that makes it difficult to know how to respond. Was it somehow irksome to you when the word "community" was used in other essays, and so you wrote this one to refute those thoughts and/or assertions? Or is this essay just more of a stream of conscious musing on something that seems interesting so you wanted to talk about it more with others? I'm picking door number two as I write my words now.
On the one hand, it seems obvious that an online community is a very different thing than an IRL community. IMHO, there are pros and cons to each kind. But to declare an online community as not being a "community" goes a bit too far, I think. To me it's rather like declaring that a pen pal isn't a real friend in the same way an IRL friend is. Yes that is true of course, so true that I wonder why it needs to be said. And yet, a pen pal friendship can be a beautiful thing because one soul can talk to another in almost a pure kind of way, without the normal kind of superficial barriers that get in the way (i.e. too short, too tall, too thin, too fat, bad clothes, GREAT clothes, too ugly, too pretty, etc.) I love the idea of two persons falling in love as pen pals before they meet in person and decide to get married.
By participating regularly in discussion at a site where it is possible to "get to know the characters", I think important aspects of relationships can be conducted here. I feel that i know and am quite fond of a number of persons that are here.
And I feel we can be honest here in a way that is sometimes difficult in real life, because certain topics might not be safe to discuss with those you need to be in the physical presence of on a regular basis.
I especially love that like minded persons can have discussions on topics of mutual interest, with persons that might be difficult to find in real life. I find that the act of "talking" helps me "think", that I can find new insights that I never had before during that process, and so I treasure those talks. Either another person tells me a factoid, or simply shares information that turns out to be a puzzle piece that, once I have it, allows me to see a bigger picture.
So I think I am in favor of places like c99p. I also am in favor of IRL friends too. Both are good, in different ways.
~OaWN
Door number two is correct,
and is precisely the kind of response I hoped to elicit by submitting this essay. Thank you. Yet even your sincere testimony as to the undeniable value of online relationships doesn't negate my argument that online communities are something quite other than actual communiities.
native
I already agreed with you on that
Are you next going to insist that the sun rises in the east, and that 2 + 2 = 4?
If so, I will agree with you on that too. I don't understand why you insist on stating something so obvious.
~OaWN
Like me, OaWN agrees on that point.
Unlike me, OaWN doesn't seem to think that a purely online community ought to become, at least in part, IRL as well. Given the rotten circumstances we're living under, IMO we need the strength and depth of offline contact, given who and what we're fighting (if we are fighting). Even if all we're doing is trying to survive, or dodge the blows of the current aristocracy, I think we need more than online exchange. The brutality of the circumstances warrants the persistence and strength of offline bonds for those who stand in opposition to it.
However, that should not be taken as an expression of disrespect for the site and what it currently is.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well that's an interesting question.
Gets me thinking about Wittgenstein, and word games and stuff. The word, the concept, community has been in use since before the internet but its meaning has evolved. When we talk of an internet community we are stretching the meaning of the word to fit something new. These internet forums are not really communities, like people who live in the same place and know each other face-to-face. They're more like groups of pen pals, or something, maybe brains in a vat.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Ha! Yes indeed.
Ludwig Wittgenstein happens to be one of my heroes. I wish he were more widely read and understood. Between him and Marshall McCluhan, you've got a fairly solid base from which to evaluate the apparent insanity of contemporary culture.
native
I visit here not
seeking "community" but to bang on a keyboard (and read the efforts of others here). For face-to-face "virtual community" I recommend Cafe Wellstone on the 3D virtual platform, SecondLife.com
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Oh my, what is it about communities you don't get?
Let's talk about "real communities" pre-internet times. You know your neighbors, employers, co-workers, buddies you meet doing your favorite thingie, like sports, music playing or pub buddies to rant about frigging politics over a beer. Right?
So, you know these folks face to fave and have a better "feeling" for who they are, what they think, how crooket they might be etc. Live in a fascist or totalitarion or authoritarian regime and you might admit that each of you is distrusting or trusting the buddies you might know in your "real" community quite a bit. Think former East Germany, they had "real communities" and couldn't trust their closest friends, neighbors or even family members (similarly to people in the Third Reich in the early 1930ies, though not many people believe that to have been the case. My mother said once to me that this "distrust" is the marker for a society living under a dictatorship of any kind).
Other say this virtual community resembles more a group of pen pals or a literary club (?). People who exchange their thoughts in letters. So, what's the difference of those "clubs" to a "virtual commnunity"? I think the fact that I believe in a pen pal club or a group of thinkers exchanging their opinions in letters they were NOT anonymous for the most part.
People exchanged their thoughts and opinions and people knew who they were. Not very often had people to resort to pseudonyms to hide their true identiy. It happened but was not the rule or the majority, I believe, it was the exception.
In a "virtual community" the majority is anonymous. Look at the difference between for example the C99p member Steven D, who put out a photo of himself and I can verify, the guy on the photo is the guy I met on a meet-up. So everthing he is in the virtual community, he is in the real space. For how many people do we know that to be the case? Either on dailykos or on C99p?
In a virtual community the amount of distrust you might have about the motivation of someone posting his opinions into a diary or comment is way higher than your distrust to your fellow neighbors and buddy you have in your real space political group. You constantely ask yourself (at least I do), why someone says what he is saying online. And it's hard to figure it out without going into the wildest imatinations and speculations, almost always wrong. How often have you read: "Oh, I thought you were youngish and not old, a woman and not a man, a "whatever" and not "that something".
As far as I remember that was going on all the time on dailykos and it would be here too, if some people here didn't know each other in real space.
I think the only thing different in a real community and a virtual community is that in a virtual community you can play easier fake personality roles and hide their motivations of why they play with your other "virtual community friends". That is harder to do in real space, but still not impossible. And that is "bad".
But your instincts in real space would lead you to be much more careful to trust the "wrong" person. On the other hand, if you could see the emotional effects of your words posted in a virtual community, on the readers in real life, if you would see how they suffer, how they feel pain and why they feel hurt, you would never exchange your thoughts as innocnetly and honest and upfront as much as you would in a virtual community.
If this technology would be available without the anonymity factor, virtual "friendships" or "communities" would be much more "real". The anonymity enhances cruel behavior among the people, who use online communities for their thought exchanges. Instinctively people realize that and counter that with a lot of more or less well meaning, but also sometimes not really "real" kindness. So, you have both things happening, more emotionally cruel, and more emotional kind exchanges of opinions. All of it I think one can understand and learn to deal with. It's hard, but not impossible.
I think the great worth of this and may be other "virtual communities" lies in the information exchanges of political or other facts, that you would never get, had you not the internet technology helping to get so much informational access.
The better and the more honest and decent and educated its writers, the more worth there is to find in a "virtual community" despite all the other disadvantages.
One last thing is that I like to say is that I do not believe that dailykos was in the very early years any worse than other poltical blogs concerning abusive behavior The owner just had some stupid ideas of restricting his site's purpose to supporting one political goal and the moderation policies were not working the way people expected it.
Dailykos got "hard to swallow" because any identity group out there started to use that site for their own "civil rights fights" and that lead to too much emotional tensions among diverse identity groups of members, one group started to feel more "hurt" than the next one. In the end it became unbearable, because they all accused each other on the basis of their specific identity political issues.
I don't remember anymore as of when I found it very hard to swallow some stuff on dailykos. Actually I think I had always some difficulties to digest certain writers.
But then the same develops or can develop here as well. I don't see how you can avoid that. It's just the nature of the beast. And then there is the phenomenon that too many people talk and you have the urge to talk a little bit louder and make some fancy noise with your words to "cut through to the crowd". One can forgive that too, no?
As they used to say in the news TV studio I worked, sometimes less is more. Wanting to attract members to write and post here, you get rather more than less and then you get this "drowning feeling".
But so far, people are swimming. JtC and Joe have thrown out a life vest for some reasons. Seems they knew what they were doing. So, it is worth to support this community, and I don't care how real it may become or how virtual it remains.
Hört, hört ! n/t
Ja, Ja ! ich habe gesprochen. :-) /nt