Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (59332)	9/21/2002 1:30:37 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You can't do that with people at the office. Or your neighbors. Or at the corner bar. That's 3-d life, and there you can't offend and outrage people you have to see every day, people you have to live next to, or people who might punch you in the mouth. In 3-d life, you are accountable to everyone, with the possibility of sanctions by those you annoy, which can truly affect the quality of your real life. The fact that a poster who may be a gentleman in 3D because he has to be WANTS to be outrageous and takes the opportunity that SI gives him to do so tells us something very real about him that his colleagues probably don't know, or have only a vague, uneasy sense of. For example: CH described the episode in which he asserted that I had "confessed" that I was "into looking at sadistic porn on the internet" as "just word play." He of course knew it was very upsetting to me, and that the dishonesty of the ploy, and my distress, was upsetting to my husband. He took the advantage you mention of not being 3D to create as much unhappiness as he could. He didn't have to do it, and few people would do it. Is the reason you don't do things like that, JC, because you figure you couldn't get away with it? No, you could, on SI. You don't because you don't have it in you. That wasn't the only opportunity CH took to have sadistic fun. That tells me a great deal about the man--and you and I agree that he probably seldom does such things to his 3D friends and neighbors. I know more about the kind of person he is than they do, if that's true. Even if they know what he looks like. We may not know that a person is a quadriplegic who is using voice recognition software (if the person decides not to reveal that information), which is of course a major thing about a person's life not to know; but it's a physical one, and I believe that most of those who would see the quadriplegic strapped upright in his 3D wheelchair, head held upright by a 3D brace, and are fully aware of his dreadful disability would know less than we would about his mind and 'soul,' after a few years of conversation here. We'd know a lot that his 3D neighbors of years, who mostly relate to him as though he were mentally retarded, for example speaking to his wife of "him" in the third person, in his presence, will never know. I think epistolary relationships are real ones. And here, they are often immediate, intense, complex, and more revealing than the old fashioned letter. It may be a stage here, but it's a well-lit one where 'souls' are concerned. You and I may disagree greatly about how much we know about 3D people outside of our most intimate circle, of course. Tomorrow night I'm going to see a lot of people I've known for, literally, decades. I know many of them less well than I know Poet, whom I've met twice in person, or Solon, whom I've never met, or CH, whom I've never met. It's odd what happens when you meet an SI friend you like. You feel as though you've known them for years. The conversation is easy. You know so much about them, it's all easy. I've met five, and it was like that in each case. Old friends. 'Night, all. Bye for a while.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (59332)	9/21/2002 8:53:32 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think some people here took the "alias versus real person" distinction too literally ... Sometimes people create a metaphor to try to convey an idea but it backfires. It takes on a life of its own and detracts from the underlying point. That surely happened here. I hope we can dispense with the "real people" thing. It's just not helpful. You can't do that with people at the office. Or your neighbors. Or at the corner bar. That's 3-d life, and there you can't offend and outrage people you have to see every day, people you have to live next to, or people who might punch you in the mouth. I think another argument that fell flat is this SI/3D dichotomy. You're right. You can't do that with the people at the office, or the corner bar, or your neighbors, at least not easily, but you can do it easily at a downtown bar. The distinction between SI and 3D is an erroneous one. On the question of accountability, the distinction is not one of cyberspace vs. physical space, it is one of anonymity. Anonymity can be created in 3D as well as here, although not as easily, if one is so inclined. So insisting that SI is uniquely different from 3D has not been very useful, either. There are, indeed, things about this venue that are different, but not totally different from the various venues we find in 3D, It seems more useful to compare and contrast the various venues or aspects of venues than to declare a dichotomy. That just invites argument. In the course of that, you're mentioned a couple of things about SI that are both distinctive and significant. One is that this world is not physical. That means that no one can knock your teeth out. It also means that we lack some of the clues for reading people that we may have elsewhere. The other is that there is an off button. What goes on here does not need to intrude into the rest of your life unless you want it to or let it. It makes sense to me to analyze and argue about the significance of those differences in our little world. It is interesting and helpful to do so. It makes no sense at all to argue about 3D or real people or actions vs. words.