Non-Monetized Together #svalien

This article is also available at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/why-studios-should-make-movies-for-mingling-1b846f03a8cc

The filmgoing experience is all about identifying with, or at the very least, taking an interest in the characters and experiences being shown on the screen. Combine this with movies being a common dating spot and it seems like a natural next step to make movies designed to spark social interaction.

So I’m unsure why I’ve never heard of any movies made for the purpose of being played in the background while people socialize. What do you think? I don’t see what would be stopping these movies from being played in theatres. To enable viewers to talk, the employees can just turn the volume down, like they do for autism-friendly screenings. Plus, the film’s poster can emphasize that talking with other people is encouraged during the movie.

These movies can make it easier to keep a conversation with people. Have you ever met someone that you had trouble holding a natural conversation with, not because they didn’t want to talk to you, but just because they were an awkward match? These films can help you overcome these barriers. There would always be something happening on the screen to discuss. Maybe the movie can help you choose discussion topics you wouldn’t have otherwise thought of. Or perhaps some emotional scenes could help the viewers bond together emotionally.

“Movies for mingling” could be a great way to bring people back into the theatre. With the recent dominance of streaming, filmwatching has become more isolating and less communal. These mingling movies can create a social element that’s missing from streaming services. In a similar fashion, these movies can help theatres stay competitive if VR headsets ever take off.

These movies should be about something that has a following so that patrons can find people who have similar interests as them. This means no generic action movies, comedies, etc., unless they are trying to draw in a certain fanbase. The subject matter will draw in people that have things in common each other while drawing out creeps looking to take advantage of people.

These films would benefit from having a basic storyline that doesn’t demand constant attention from the audience. Comedies, action films, and documentaries would probably be the best genres for this format. Genres that rely on immersion, like horror and drama, should not be used.

If movie theatres developed their potential as a social environment, they could make a killing. They’re open all day and all night, every day, and play the same movie multiple times a day, so they’re much more convenient than other social locations. Most of them don’t serve alcohol or have dress codes either, which can allow them to attract an even wider audience looking to mingle.

So is this a good idea? Films have been around for a long time, and the fact that nobody has tried it out makes me things there’s a hole in this idea. I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially if you have industry experience. What’s preventing studios and theatres from profiting off the basic human drive of socialization?

#Movies #MovieTheater #MovieTheatre #Entertainment #FilmIndustry

Discuss...

RosZie/Unsplash

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/it-should-not-be-an-insult-to-call-somone-unfair-8ae3d6711085

One of the biggest blows to the battle for social justice is that all the “-ism” and “-phobic” words have become insults. You can’t have a serious discussion about racism, sexism, classism, or homophobia anymore because so many people will feel personally attacked if anybody suggests to them ways they could work towards a fairer society. These used to be movements focused on equity and transformative conflict, yet they are now often used to spread moral superiority and petty conflict.

It’s important to instead discuss inequity as what it truly is, a social issue caused when people express viewpoints that accidentally contain logical gaps which overlook human rights. As a socially conscious provider of information, I can’t be sparking public fear by accusing all these statements of having malicious intent. Instead, I will have to acknowledge the possibility that the person may have simply forgotten to consider what their viewpoint means for other demographic groups.

In this article, I will demonstrate how I approach the topic of inequality. I will do this by presenting an example where the discrimination is easy to miss if you aren’t paying close attention. I will explain how it’s discriminatory, speaking for the benefit of the people who may fall for it and the people who are targeted by it. I will describe these examples as logical fallacies, not as rage bait.

I’ll discuss the comments on this r/worstof thread shaming a person who asked r/TrueChristian how to explain Christian reasoning against same-sex relationships to a Christian coworker who was already in one. I can see how at first glance, the comments can seem like fair criticism directed to someone behaving petty, unnecessary, and judgemental. So while I’ll assume the r/worstof commenters had good intentions, they failed to recognize an important piece of context, which resulted in their comments actually being discriminatory against Christians. (By the way, attacks against people for their faith do not have an “-ism” or “-phobic” word associated with them, at least not to my knowledge, but as long as they attack the people and not the religion, they can be placed in the same category).

What the commenters missed out on was the fact that Christians, like anyone else, have the responsibility to love and respect people they disagree with. The r/TrueChristian user never actually said anything judgemental, but since they view same-sex relationships as a sin, the commenters jumped to the accusation that the Christian was filled with resentment for this person, despite the fact that the Christian even says, “I’ll be praying and keep treating her the best I was already treating: with love and kindness.” Maybe they could have been a kind, supportive, empathetic friend with their coworker. But by that point, the commenters dismissed any such possibilities on the grounds of their religious views.

Some commenters also assumed that these comments would hurt their friendship. These users have forgotten that respectfully sharing advice is a common attribute of relationships among all people, Christians included. Now, it’s fine to disagree with Christian advice or to even be offended by the advice itself, and if a respectful Christian encounters that response from someone, they will know not to bring it up to that person anymore. The difference is that the r/worstof commenters aren’t personally involved in the Christian’s situation, so the commenters are saying that they don’t have to know the coworker to know that the Christian’s suggestions would poison the relationship. By assuming that nobody would take Christian advice well, the perhaps unintentional effect of their comments is that Christians should not share advice with anybody, even if they’re respectful about it, which is a double standard because that’s what everybody else does.

Now I’m not trying to get anybody outraged by a “Christian hate panic” or whatever — this is only one Reddit post after all. I’m instead here to show an example of where inequity can come from, how it can easily go unspotted, and what you can do to prevent it from happening. Christians such as I believe that intolerance against Christians is inevitable and that it will never go away completely. Instead of creating rage bait, we are supposed to consider these obstacles to be like puzzles to navigate. How we handle these puzzles will reveal our level of faith.

RosZie/Unsplash

What doesn’t solve the problem is when you insult people. This is the problem when words that should be used to describe unfairness become insults. It doesn’t people to the knowledge they need to treat people equitably. Instead, people believe that when they are called racist or homophobic or ableist or whatever, then the other person must hate them, and that they must respond not by considering the impact of their words, but by repairing their bruised ego.

Every time inequality is viewed in this way, the opportunity for resolution goes out the window, adding up to a staggering amount of lost potential over the years. Millions of missed opportunities. That’s the problem right there.

And Internet discussions are our big ticket to solving it.

Now you can give it a try in the comment section below. Feel free to use this new method of describing examples of discrimination.

#Inequity #SocialJustice #Religion #Reddit #ConflictResolution

Discuss...

Image from DALL-E 2

I know the world doesn’t revolve around me, but if you want my honest feedback about doing a presentation, here it is: don’t begin with an overview of the sections of the presentation.

Overviews set a dull, unimportant tone that often lasts for the rest of the presentation. They contain no real content, so the audience is just left waiting for you to move on to the next slide. By placing something like that at the beginning of your talk, it impacts how I experience the entirety of the presentation, putting me in the mindset where I’m waiting for the presentation to end.

Instead, you should begin your presentation with something fun and casual to grab your audience’s attention and make them interested in what you’re talking about. You can follow that up with an explanation of how the fun stuff is actually important to the subject you will be discussing, allowing you to smoothly transition to the main portion of your presentation. This format makes me feel like I should value and appreciate what you’re talking about. Plus, it doesn’t interrupt my engagement like a summary does.

I’m also more likely to enjoy your presentation if I don’t know what you’re going to discuss next. If you begin your presentation with an overview, the audience has nothing left to look forward to except for the facts that matter to them or that answer their questions. So when you’re not addressing those concerns, people like me will feel bored. I might feel anxious for you to get to the part that matters to me.

I’d rather not know what you’re going to talk about next because it gives me a reason to stay engaged, even when you’re not discussing the things that are most important to me. If you don’t include an overview, then I know I better pay attention because there’s always the possibility that an important point is right around the corner.

By not starting with a summary, your presentation can go from being a chore to commanding the floor. Your first impressions can improve your entire presentation, but preview summaries turn off my interest immediately.

This article can also be read on https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/do-you-agree-that-presentations-shouldnt-start-with-overviews-f755ccadb164.

#PublicSpeaking #PresentationTips #Presentations #Speech #FirstImpressions

Discuss...

You can also read this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/feel-free-to-post-decadeology-anarchy-content-onto-nonmonetized-together-364336a7f412?source=friends_link&sk=9f54c4dd0f77e08837ec11a5dd2903f6.

In response to the news that r/decadeologyanarchy will go private once it reaches 500 members, I want to mention that if anybody wants to make a public post in the style of that subreddit, they can use Nonmonetized Together to do so.

Decadeology is a subject I’ve been fascinated by for years. It’s a term used to refer to Internet analysis of the evolution of society, technology, politics, and pop culture throughout the years. Where decadeology differs from general historical analysis is that a decadeologist usually limits their focus to decades they’ve lived through, basing their analysis on their own personal perceptions. Another difference is that people sometimes use decadeology to predict the future.

As you can see, decadeology isn’t a very academic method of analysis, but it was never intended to be. It’s just a fun way to explore different people’s ways of perceiving the world.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that up until a few months ago, decadeology used to be more geared towards hair-splitting. You would often see people grouping certain eras with super-specific cut-offs, often down to a year’s season. Or they would analyse really small shifts in society. Now, this wasn’t exclusively the case. Decadeology has always made room for broader analysis, but hypercategorization was a common feature of decadeology.

But lately, decadeology has gained a much wider audience, which has caused the hair-splitting to be pushed to the wayside in favour of more mainstream-focused discussions. Though, I enjoyed reading the in-depth posts that used to be popular. I liked them because they were more detailed and made the community less repetitive. A few people agree with me, and they congregate on r/decadeology’s sister subreddit, r/decadeologyanarchy, which is dedicated to preserving decadeology’s tradition of making hyperspecific posts.

Since I don’t have a Reddit account, I was disappointed to hear that r/decadeologyanarchy said they would go private at a certain point. One of the reasons I read Reddit is because of its convenience — you can see a lot of discussion without signing in. But I remembered that I run a non-paywalled platform that welcomes alternative and overlooked content — the one you are reading right now. Why don’t I designate Nonmonetized Together as a place where people can publicly make decadeology anarchy posts?

This does not mean that Nonmonetized Together will become a publication focused on decadeology anarchy. I will be regularly writing new articles on other subjects just like I always have. If you liked what I’ve been posting previously, you’ll also probably like what I will continue to post on the future. I’m just saying, anybody who wants to have a public discussion on the topic of decadeology anarchy can use this platform to do so.

Nonmonetized Together is available both on Medium and on a federated platform called write.as. Make sure to read Nonmonetized Together’s “about” page to get an understanding of what the community stands for, how it works, how to behave, etc. I have other articles that go further in depth on the things discussed on that “about” page. While it’s important to read the “about” page, these other articles aren’t really necessary to read, but they can help you understand this online environment better. Many of them are featured near the bottom of the “about” page on Medium and write.as.

Nevertheless, I’m not expecting everybody to understand everything about this publication right away. If you make a Nonmonetized Together post that suggests you don’t quite understand something about it, I’ll respond to the post and let you know.

If you feel overwhelmed with all this information, you can go here to find the articles I’ve posted to Medium, sorted by topic. Please note that the list “Issues that Nonmonetized Together can help solve” is comprised up of other people’s articles; all the other lists contain my own articles.

If you want to be added as a writer to Nonmonetized Together, make a Medium account and send me a private message or comment saying you want to be added. Then you will be able to post to the publication.

Discuss...

#Invitation #Writers #Reddit #WriteAs #Decadeology

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/update-im-changing-the-name-of-svalien-to-the-context-that-isn-t-limited-in-the-same-way-as-the-1871f4b5b667.

Yep, I don’t like it when academia invents obscure terms to prevent the masses from educating themselves, so I’m just going to name #svalien something that describes exactly what it does.

Please note that the title of the publication will still be displayed as “Non-Monetized Together #svalien” because the new term is too long to fit in the title. The term #svalien will be used in the publication’s “notes from the editor” for the same reasons.

If you’re wondering “what is #svalien,” here’s the answer:

It’s a marker I invented to let everyone know that you don’t need to be constrained by politics when you’re on Nonmonetized Together. The community operates in a social context where you can be free from the limitations that your political role imposes upon you. Other activists are encouraged to make their own #svalien online communities to help restore a sense of hope among viewers.

For more information, see the link below:

https://write.as/non-monetized-together/why-i-added-svalien-to-the-nonmonetized-together-title

#Updates #CommunityUpdate #NameChange #SocialNorms #Politics

Discuss...

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/apolitical-pro-lifeism-b92b37f72f2d.

As I’ve mentioned many times already, I decided to stop participating in competitive politics in 2020 because I just couldn’t convince myself that my political views were any more important than anyone else’s. Becoming politically neutral means that the pro-life components of my Catholic faith are presented in a luminous new perspective that not everybody is familiar with.

People tend to assume that pro-lifers want to outlaw abortions using state control, but my noncompetitive approach means that I would rather make it easy for others to find access to information on why abortion is not such a great idea. This way, I can make a positive difference in society without trying to gain control of society.

I believe this is a more empowering approach for people than traditional pro-life or pro-choice movements because it is centred on distributing knowledge, not on forming oppressive laws. This is what’s useful about my neutrality — you know I’m on your side and that I have no ulterior motives.

Besides, as an eager follower of Christ, I don’t want to turn people away from Catholicism. I want to present it as something people would want to get involved with. By the way, the lack of public religious discussion is a societal problem. You should be spreading your own religion’s knowledge, too, unless it discourages that sort of thing for whatever reason.

So, in this article, I will present the Church’s pro-life philosophy from the point of someone who wants to share a valuable perspective, not from someone who wants to control you for political gain:

Remember that the reason why murder is considered immoral is because it takes away a life, which is the most valuable thing someone can own. By this standard, abortion would be worse than murder of a fully-formed person because a fetus didn’t even get the chance to own their life yet.

Plus, there’s no concrete scientific proof as to the exact point all fetuses become human, so you run the risk of killing someone who has already gotten to that point. You would have to use personal feelings instead of scientific proof in order to justify abortion, which is really irresponsible when a potential life is at stake.

When someone’s dealing with personal problems so bad that they have to kill someone in order to overcome the problems (like gangs, drug addiction, sex trafficking, etc.), people would usually realize that the solution would have been to prevent the problem from getting out of control, offer the sufferer alternative solutions, or find a way for them to be less desperate. In these cases, it would be ridiculous to say the issue could be solved by making it easier to kill someone, like pro-abortion camps would. That wouldn’t solve the greater problem.

So if you want to convince a pro-life person that abortion is okay, you’ll have to not only persuade them that someone’s life isn’t valuable enough for them to take ownership of, but you will also have to find indisputable proof as to the exact moment when all fetuses become human.

#Abortion #Catholicism #Philosophy #Power

Discuss...

I would like to present the people with the greatest-rising association with the word “terrorist,” every year from 2005-2023, according to Google Trends. Some of these examples demonstrate the demonization of different identity groups by society over time as well as the wide variety of cases the term “terrorist” is used for.

The names in this article are based on worldwide data, not country-specific data. I know data may vary depending on country, but I think basing it on worldwide data can show us the enemy of the country that was the most powerful at the time.

In 2005, the face of terrorism was Volkswagen.

In 2006, the face of terrorism was Zinedine Zidane.                                     

In 2007, the face of terrorism was Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

In 2008, the face of terrorism was Bill Ayers.

In 2009, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2010, the face of terrorism was Carlos the Jackal.

In 2011, the face of terrorism was Osama bin Laden.

In 2012, the face of terrorism was Anna Hazare.

In 2013, the face of terrorism was Dzhokar A Tsarnaev.

In 2014, the face of terrorism was the Islamic State.

In 2015, the faces of terrorism were Christian terrorists.

In 2016, the face of terrorism was Black Lives Matter.

In 2017, the faces of terrorism were anti-fascists.

In 2018, the faces of terrorism were Islamic terrorists.

In 2019, the face of terrorism as the United States Coast Guard.

In 2020, the faces of terrorism were the U.S. State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

In 2021, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2022, the face of terrorism was state-sponsored terrorism.

In 2023, the face of terrorism was Hamas.

I knew it! Social media is depersonalizing how we view each other! From 2014 onward, the enemy has been organizations, while from 2005-2013, it has been mostly individuals. Honestly, I enjoyed it more back then, when people understood that there was variation within groups.

Can you make out any other patterns from the data?

#Terrorism #GoogleTrends #Media #Representation #Culture

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/178a35c76cf1?source=friends_link&sk=8fc18a4ee30a965708e99baf2656929b.

Discuss...

Dan Dimmock/Unsplash

Article also available at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/hypothesis-that-might-explain-political-hostility-in-the-internet-age-26ecedb9c5b4.

I have a hypothesis for why people in the Internet age are so unwelcoming when it comes to politics. It’s a multi-stage process, and I’m gonna lay it out here. You’ve probably already heard bits and pieces of this hypothesis elsewhere already. I’m writing this article in the hopes that you will be a curious citizen and investigate whether the hypothesis is valid.

In the first stage, some left-wing and right-wing media publications show only the most spiteful and stupid examples from both opposing political angles.

In the second stage, a small selection of people from each side acts foolish enough to assume that those examples are an accurate representation of the entire political wing. They make online posts under that assumption. They may also forget that people on the opposing side may come across very different stories, descriptions of stories, and political rhetoric than they do.

In the third stage, people from the other side view those online posts. They get defensive because these posts don’t match their reality and/or because they aren’t aware of the subtext behind the post (due to the differing information they receive in the first place). Since these are personal examples that reflect the negative news coverage they see, the idea that the other side is made up of the brainwashed and the dangerous starts to appear more convincing to them.

In the fourth stage, the people introduced in the third stage start acting in a way that appears extremist to the other side, yet simply natural to someone who believes that their side is under attack. Other people start thinking, “this person must be a threat to society because I never asked to attack anybody, yet they’re threatening me!” As these real-world incidents continue to grow, this ends up appearing to further validate the clickbait journalism from the first stage.

From here on out, the cycle continues repeating. Both sides continue collecting examples and influencing people until the threat becomes real and democracy starts to crumble, despite the only people who actually wanted this to happen being the few outlying examples from the first stage.

This is only a hypothesis, so it doesn’t mean anything until you start collecting data on it. Yet if it turns out to be true, one of the solutions could be to rely on religion/spirituality/philosophy instead of competitive politics. Another solution could be to make Internet posts that highlight the positive potential that opposing political wings can achieve if only they don’t act like the worst examples of themselves.

So go out and test this hypothesis. Look up academic findings, network with members of Nonmonetized Together, research cases and compare them to each other, communicate with people from different walks of life, and attend events.

If you’re too tired to do this, let me know in the comments. If I get one of these responses, I will participate in this research too. I will not only keep notes of the information I collect, but my entire research-gathering process, so you will see what I did that led up to finding the information, as well as research attempts that did not bring up anything useful. Don’t wait for somebody else to tell me they’re tired; most of my articles get either zero or one comments.

Exciting, right? Now start learning!

#Activity #Research #Theory #LeftWing #RightWing

Discuss...

Article also available at https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/8-questions-that-you-may-not-have-considered-asking-yourself-133d0ff85061?source=friends_link&sk=09755cedbad4d4f7134088e6b7ede56e.

Nonmonetized Together is a place where people can think ponder their worldview and develop a greater understanding of themselves. This article is no different.

I’ve put together eight questions for readers to ask themselves. Probably only some of the questions will apply to each reader. There are three positive outcomes that this can achieve:

a) You teach me that a question is inaccurate or missing key information.

b) You keep the previous belief that the question is asking about, but expand it so that it now accounts for the factors mentioned in the question. This would result in a more educated and persuasive argument than what you had before.

c) You change your mind after considering the question.

There is one not-so-positive outcome this article can achieve, and that would be if you already considered the points I bring up, therefore waste their time by reading the article. I welcome all four options equally because I gave up on being competitively political a while ago. I’m here to provide an online environment where you can be encouraged to encounter any of the four outcomes.

Okay, here are the questions:

1. Have you considered that by framing abortion as a women’s issue and not a family issue, you’re describing childcare choices as something only women can do?

2. Why would you assume all affirmative action hires people based off their identity and not their suitability for the job? Maybe some affirmative action initiatives can focus on the most suitable applicants from each race, gender, sexuality, and disability.

3. If you made a big fuss about YouTube dislikes getting removed but not about YouTube removing comments from videos on “Topic” channels, why?

4. Why are you so concerned about “cancel culture” when back in the day, you would understand that you can’t please everybody? (This might be a good question for @lanajthomas)

5. You do realize that shutting down sexuality-switching sessions only helps those who are fine with their current sexuality, right? Not people who want to change it.

6. When somebody calls your theory racist, why do you choose to take it personally instead of as feedback on the weaknesses of your theory?

7. Why do you expect AI to compensate you for influencing its output when human artists don’t compensate you for influencing them?

8. What makes you think that you can convince people with harmful ideologies to change their mind if you don’t even let them speak on your platform?

I hope you had fun expanding your perspectives! And before you comment, remember, this is a #svalien space, which means you are free to not let your political orientation limit your ability to do things such as supporting your side’s sacrificial lambs, not forcing everybody into predefined groups, and more. Read here to find out.

#PersonalGrowth #ReaderCentred #Thinking #Questions #List

Discuss...

Does getting in a political Internet argument throw the rest of your day off course? Are you stuck deciding between the anxiety of staying silent and the anxiety of participating in the argument? Ladies and gentlemen, I have found a way to approach politics that might actually address your needs.

Here’s the idea. In the comments section for the article on this link, one of you readers can answer the question, “what political movement concerns you and why?” Then another person can respond to that comment and explain why that person doesn’t need to be concerned. This way, the focus of the argument can be focused on using politics to provide comfort and security to others.

Please remember, this doesn’t mean you should invalidate the commenters’ concerns or make them feel misunderstood. The commenters’ worries should be approached as legitimate. Even if it isn’t legitimate to you, it’s legitimate to them, and may be emotionally or mentally painful for them. Moreover, these fears won’t just go away if the commenters are told they’re not real. By approaching politics this way, I hope that this will promote empathy and solidarity for people with different viewpoints.

Now let’s take Internet discussion to its full potential!

#Politics #Discussion #Support #OnlineCommunication #PoliticalDiscussion

Discuss...