Fun fact: every single person on a board could be muted by one or more people, and the board could still have lively discussions going on.
Muting is like muting a TV set. When I hit the Mute button on my remote, it doesn’t magically take away the power of speech from the people broadcasting live. I just can’t hear them.
It’s not making people not talk. It’s making it so you don’t have to hear them.
Yup! Click the microphone icon where the name and post used to be. May require reloading active pages.
(I’m strongly tempted to add a prompt, and if yes, play a little gavel animation)
Anyone who honestly thinks that everyone else has to listen to them or pay them any attention has some serious ego issues, methinks.
IMO, Jeff’s reticience to have such a feature on the other site seems like some petty power-tripping, in retrospect.
Being ridiculed rather than simply disagreed with, and being characterized as “shouting” highlights the kinds of personal problems which detract from discourse, here as well as “elsewhere”. And if anything, re-enforces why I expressed criticism of this sort of paradigm in the first place.
There isn’t anything uniform about it. Accepting that we have different perspectives would be a celebration of diversity, but I interpret avoidance of those with ideals and attitudes unlike oneself as being more a tacit reluctance towards diversity. You can SAY that you have a diverse community, because they are technically all members - they simply aren’t expected to interact with each other. Which, like most forms of proxy representation in society, makes it symbolic, an imagined rather than actual community.
It is obviously not always as binary as that, but systems where openness is conditional and obscured do seem to me to be less committed. Arguably this is not only a different feature, but proposes a fundamentally different type of community and participation. I am not saying that it instantly ruins everything, but I think it lowers rather than raises the bar of mature engagement, and sets a bad precedent.
I don’t strictly disagree. But I think it is ultimately an individualist excuse for what is literally ignorance. Perhaps its telling that we had an actual vote over something which sounds like a big deal but doesn’t make any practical difference - a name - but no vote on something which has a more immediate (irony) effect upon the actual mechanics and character of discourse.
Apparently, many here don’t agree. But those are my personal standards and values - tribalism is an antisocial and fairly destructive basis for a community. It is kind of disillusioning for me with regards to the kind of community I thought I was allying myself with. As well as for the state of online discussion generally.
I admire how you have summed up the essence of this in a single sentence.
It’s how the freaking feature works. There’s nothing to “disagree” about.
You’re scared everyone will mute you. Okay. We get it.
Ah, so I might as well have not said anything. See? It’s working already. I guess this topic and discussion is completely superfluous - apart from acting as a sounding board for assenting opinions.
You pretty much disregarded everything I said only so that you could put words in my mouth. Sure, I don’t have any legitimate social concerns, I can be casually reduced to a few petty personal problems. /s Normalizing this sort of interaction is the real reason why this forum, as well as certain others, gets so argumentative. Simply being ignored is a lot less insulting than being deliberately misrepresented by the other participants. I don’t need a web forum to feel scared, I can do that anywhere, anytime. I think of such tech as optimally a way to clarify communications, rather than a way to enshrine communications’ worst habits.
This community is looking more to me like an actual microcosm of the social/political/economic landscape that the members claim to be so critical of. And as such I think there is an element of dysfunction to it, whether I am a member or not. Become the change you want to see.
*snickers
Sorry; that was funny.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. Shouting was hyperbole on my part, I figured harmlessly, though I suppose I could try to avoid it should it prove harmful. But when someone is admonishing others for tribalism and at the same time for not engaging with their “team”, “group”, and “own people” – you know, exactly the sorts of things tribalism actually means loyalty toward? I find that incongruity ridiculous, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise.
That’s what discourse with me looks like. Hopefully at least some people like having me here anyway; and if others don’t care for it, I’m fine if they talk to other people here instead. Because friendship isn’t transitive, an inclusive community doesn’t need to follow a complete graph where everyone is all in or out, and I don’t really want to make people listen to me if they’d rather not.
Can you unmute a user?
I fat fingered, too. Maybe it should be behind the extras button thingie (the …) after the link icon?
I think a prompt would be a good idea!
Bro. You’re the one criticizing. Horse. Cart. Thanks!
I was trying to briefly outline how I think tribalism contrasts with collectivism in this context. Perhaps I didn’t make that clear, and/or you don’t agree. Tribalism is what I am calling defining which individuals are part of an ingroup versus outgroup, while collectivism is what I am calling an organization which is defined by its principles, and those of the participants, without tying those principles or participants to personal identities.
Thanks for those links. I don’t really do friendship or other interpersonal relationships. I strive to be open yet formal.
I suppose my corollary to that would be that I think of actual community as being where people don’t bring those wants or other personal problems through the door in the first place. Personal problems are just that - personal - and there is no inter-subjectivity which makes them accessible or actionable to others. We are already all completely separate apart from whatever structure we negotiate as existing between us, that is, society.
Anyway, I suppose that it suffices to say that we see what being an individual or a member of a group means very differently. Unfortunately, I don’t see this sort of specific topic as being a place where any of us will convince the others of much, so I do not intend to keep discussing it here.
except you? I confuse
It’s easy to unmute somebody if you mute them by mistake.
The microphone icon at the right side of the hidden post is the unmute button.
No
Yes
would it be incorrect to say that you’ve brought a want in through the front door?
Nothing wrong with that IMO, but you seem to think there is? So I am confused.
Nit: I think it would be better to have the mute button in the “…” menu because it seems a bit strange to have it presented as one of the primary ways to react to a post, even more visible than flagging the post.
That being said, I don’t personally plan to mute any individual, because I find even if someone’s views on one subject are really obnoxious, often their input on something else is invaluable. I’ll still want to mute topics that are too much for me to handle, though.
I don’t know where I got this but ‘Be careful when you poke a neighbor in the eye. You never know when you may need that neighbor, or their eyes.’
