Non-Monetized Together #svalien

You can also read this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/why-i-added-svalien-to-the-nonmonetized-together-title-7d7fe230f4ac.

Update: I no longer use the term #svalien to describe this, I use the term “the context that isn’t limited in the same way as the political context.”

Definition of #Svalien

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.

Why, though?

I’m giving you the opportunity to get away with behaviours that would otherwise be viewed as politically self-destructive. This is one of the strategies I use to keep Nonmonetized Together a place with minimal influence from the outside world’s current unequal power structure. In this article, I’ll start by giving five reasons why #svalien spaces could be valuable and useful. Then, I will explain my strategies for achieving those goals and answer some other questions you may have about #svalien.

Reason 1: So you can work to achieve the same political goal with fewer sacrificial lambs

Politics is all about strategically allocating limited resources to achieve political goals. For a government to invest more in achieving a certain goal, they have to cut funding for other areas of society. Or when the government is changing laws, there are a limited number of people these laws can appeal to. Because of these restrictions, all political ideologies have sacrificial lambs — segments of the population who lose out from these ideologies gaining power.

Image from Jon Tyson/Unsplash

Sacrificial lambs are a necessary but unfortunate component in society. The best you can do to lessen the consequences of sacrificial lambs is to tell the lambs not to take the politics personally. Not only does this interpretation make things easier for everybody but it’s also more accurate — sacrificial lambs are a natural consequence of the democratic system, merely unlucky enough to be on the losing side of society. Yet promoting this reality will be problematic in the real world because of the aforementioned limited resources that political sides compete over. Personal attacks allow political interests to use their resources more efficiently.

This reality extends to most of the Internet, despite the fact that the Internet allows you to send public messages without needing to consider as many risk factors as would the government. But social media is also used as a tool by politicians, organizations, and influencers to extend their political reach, and of course their online messages have to be consistent with the messages they communicate in other formats. This means that the power dynamics of the offline world are replicated onto the online world. To change these norms concerning sacrificial lambs, there needs to be an online place that isolates itself from these power interests, and that’s what Nonmonetized Together promises to achieve.

You can use Nonmonetized Together to support your political orientation’s sacrificial lambs while attacking them outside of Nonmonetized Together. This would not be hypocritical because success through Nonmonetized Together means following different rules than the rules for achieving political success. For once and for all, I’m giving you the chance to interact with sacrificial lambs without feeling threatened by them. This may allow you to learn new things about them. If enough of these interactions occur, we might be able to reduce the fallout caused by political upheaval … by a tiny amount, at least.

Sebastian Herrmann/Unsplash

Reason 2: So you don’t have to group people in categories they don’t belong

Politics only thrives when it places people in broad categories. “Family values” can mean many different things, but when it becomes politicised as “pro-family values,” it typically only means one thing. Same thing with LGBT+ rights and “pro-LGBT+ rights” organizations. Liberal, conservative, and leftist are also broad categories, and a political party will usually identify with one of those three options instead of the subcategories that more accurately reflect people’s beliefs. This way, a political party can get 50% of the votes despite taking firm policy stances on ten different controversial issues.

Categorization benefits politicians because it encourages conformity, even when group members don’t feel like they completely belong. Categorization also allows politicians to pretend that they speak for an entire demographic of people — something that’s good for their public image but obviously untrue. There are variations in every group. For example, on his campaign website, Donald Trump aligns his interests with that of law enforcement, military veterans, and those who feel censored. Joe Biden doesn’t yet have a section on his campaign website where he highlights his plan, but in his recent tweets, he claims he is on same side as immigrants from Muslim countries, those struggling with student debt, and Tribal communities. But what about people in law enforcement who are struggling with student debt, or tribe members who feel censored?

Before Nonmonetized Together, these people would struggle to have their perspectives heard and would be given less support by society. If that sounds like you, your lived experience can now get some recognition from a community centred on finding solutions, inspiration, and knowledge. Another thing is that on Nonmonetized Together, there’s not that dynamic I mentioned earlier about needing to hold on to your resources, so you don’t have much to lose by acknowledging underserved populations on Nonmonetized Together. Compare that to the outside world where it’s usually less risky to pretend that reality is simpler than it is.

Reason 3: So people can feel comfortable sharing subversive views with the community

Some viewpoints, such as socialism or transformative anti-colonialism, don’t sit well with those in power, because they require people to let go of things they have developed a strong attachment to, and because they deal with concepts that are very uncomfortable to address. Because these beliefs are a tough sell to politicians, they are not well-suited to the “rules of the game” of politics. Many people who have subversive views have to tone them down to something more mainstream whenever they participate in the political sphere. Otherwise, they go nowhere.

I try to make Nonmonetized Together a place where people can feel comfortable sharing these ideas, but only if they want to. Really what I’m aiming for is a respectful community with diverse views. By making sure this blog avoids dominant power relations, I can remove the need for Nonmonetized Together users to appease people in power.

Reason 4: So people can present and interpret counterarguments as something to benefit from

It’s problematic to view the personal as political because then you will interact with people like a politician. An example of this is on social media, where counterarguments are used — and generally interpreted — as something that someone deploys to boost their own ego. Politicians behave this way because it’s part of their job, but this is not a socially responsible way for other people to behave. On Nonmonetized Together, I’m trying to create an alternative culture where counterarguments are instead used to benefit the person they are directed to.

Hector J Rivas/Unsplash

Reason 5: So you can have a non-political discussion about oft-politicized topics *Does not apply to Nonmonetized Together*

I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing for ordinary people to be politically conscious, but sometimes those discussions are not what you’re looking for. Sometimes you just want to talk about transgender people, vaccinations, or an at-war country from a completely innocuous perspective. Now, I don’t think Nonmonetized Together is the right place for that, but I suppose this could be an idea for other #svalien online spaces.

How should I refer to this publication in everyday communication?

This publication should still be referred to as Nonmonetized Together in everyday communication. The hashtag is supposed to be kind of like a verification symbol. I actually wanted to put it in the description but there wasn’t enough space except in the publication’s “notes from the editor.”

Does the word svalien mean anything?

No, I just find it catchy, coming from an English-speaking perspective. It’s just the word “alien” with the rarely-used letter combination “sv” added to it. Same reason why the Nonmonetized Together logo consists only of the colour pink. It’s simple and recognizable.

Strategies I will use to achieve this

If you have any other strategies or any ways of improving this list, please let me know!

· Correct people who use this platform incorrectly. When a commenter uses a tactic that is more appropriate for competitive politics than Nonmonetized Together, I will tell them about Nonmonetized Together’s social context and how it affects their tactic. I will mention their tactic and their goal by name, and say that while their tactic may be suitable for their goal in most social contexts, the tactic would not help them achieve their goal on Nonmonetized Together, and that different strategies may be more useful. If this situation ever happens, being polite will be crucial because I will have to convey to the commenter that I wasn’t expecting them to understand everything about Nonmonetized Together. In fact, the only methods I have for keeping readers updated about Nonmonetized Together are either to answer people’s questions about it, or to respond to comments that get something wrong about Nonmonetized Together.

Edge2Edge Media/Unsplash

· Swearing off competitive politics. In 2020, I decided that everybody would be better off if I wasn’t competitively political, so I trained my mind to approach politics differently. Three years later, I’m no longer interested in competing for my political self-interest. I would rather enjoy my life for what it is and give you opportunities for achievement. I also find Christianity more satisfying than competitive politics. Competitive politics and Christianity are like two sides of the same coin. They’re both value systems but are complete opposites otherwise. Competitive politics is all about competition, power, and ego while Christianity is supposed to be about co-operation, wisdom, and humility (there are a lot of people who appropriate religion for competitive political purposes though, but the two are supposed to be separate). So right now, religion is a big goal for me, not competitive politics. Even though most of my articles are not overtly religious, I feel like I’m doing a service to God by presenting a collaborative space that functions as an alternative to competitive politics. That, instead of political competition, is what motivates me and gives me meaning in my life.

· Holding individuals accountable, not groups. This means that when I can, I should describe people in my articles as individuals, not as a member of a group. Depending on what’s appropriate for the situation, I can refer to them by username, real name, fake name, or no name at all, but not as an anonymous member of a group. I should refer to them like I do in this article. With the grown-ups in charge assigning blame to entire groups of people, it’s all too easy to forget that these groups aren’t identical clones of each other. Nonmonetized Together is here to resist this practice and describe people as people. I think presenting stories this way can help people view issues as they are without delving into identity politics. This might also make it easier for the people in these articles to come across Nonmonetized Together’s post on them, which would probably result in a significant positive influence on the issue that was being written about.

· Opening new avenues of thought in the comment section. If someone ever hijacks this community and uses it to fuel the political machine, I can respond to their comments not by discussing the same things everybody else has been arguing in circles about, but by making comments that open the very mental faculties they are trying to close. Since the person I’m talking with would technically be an Internet troll, I wouldn’t be too bothered if I don’t convince them of anything — I would mainly be writing for the readers, not for the trolls. The goal is to prevent readers from getting caught up in unproductive forms of political thought.

Antonio Janeski/Unsplash

· Implementing commenter’s suggestions. Nonmonetized Together isn’t my blog, it’s our blog. If you have any suggestions for Nonmonetized Together, let me know in the comment section so I can implement them. By making it easy to share your suggestions with me, this can help make the hunger of power irrelevant within the community. I haven’t had any suggestions yet (other than one deleted comment), but I will implement your suggestions as long as they are practical and they achieve their purpose. If I don’t think your suggestion will work, I won’t put it in place, but I will respond to your comment and tell you why.

· Researching claims that commenters make. Distributing misinformation can result in gaining huge political power. If I can’t verify user’s claims, I’ll ask them for verification. Until I get some sort of confirmation from the commenter, I will put a warning in the article so the readers are aware that the claims are unverified. An example of this would be my discussion with Turi Sue in the comment section for this article.

· Trying not to write articles from a position of authority. I want the author-reader power dynamic to be equal. In this article, I use the words “might” and “may” to indicate that the suggestions could possibly work, not that they would probably work. The article also gives the reader opportunities to decide for themselves what’s best for them. For example, at one point, I write, “This may not be the best idea, so I hope people who read this article can collaborate so they can make a better one.” I also ask, “Do you have any ideas for techniques to research information outside of AI’s influence?” I have noticed I’m not always great at sounding nonauthoritative in my writing, but that’s something I can improve on.

· Not monetizing the articles. This will bring the focus back to knowledge production, not money production. Trading knowledge for knowledge is more equal than trading money for knowledge.

· Not giving claps. Sometime maybe a few months ago, I decided I will no longer give claps to comments and posts on Nonmonetized Together articles. Other readers can, but as the creator of Nonmonetized Together, it could be a conflict of interest if I clapped. (edit: I now give claps to articles but not individual comments because I want to boost some conversations but give everybody an equal chance to be visible when participating in them)

· Being patient with the commenters. I give them as many chances as they need to explain themselves clearly. I can also start comments with something like, “let me know if I understand correctly.”

Priscilla Du Preez/Unsplash

· Targeting my responses toward all readers. Even when it seems like I’m responding to one person, I have to remember that there could be other people reading the response. I try to consider how this comment could be useful to them and inspire them to come up with ideas for positive change.

· Not using weaponized trigger words.

· Using straightforward language to avoid unnecessary conflict.

· Free speech with consequences. Yes, people have the legal right to behave unfairly, but that also means that I have the legal right to behave fairly by undoing the damage they caused. There are a few ways I can do this. The simplest option is to warn others about a user’s unacceptable behaviour. There is also the option of not responding to the harmful comments directly, but by responding to the comment as if it was undamaging, whether that be by jumping through obvious mental hoops or by slightly changing the comment’s wording. Yet unlike much of the “political” Internet, this isn’t to cause damage or create drama, but to treat the community fairly. Like I said, I can’t stop everybody online from being an unfair person (restricting their speech doesn’t change anything), but I can reduce the damage by being fair.

· Instead of telling someone their argument is wrong, telling them what is missing from their argument. People spend so much time complaining about the other political side but very little time figuring out how the opposition could be a better version of itself. This is because promoting encouragement is not compatible with the competitive political field. Yet on Nonmonetized Together, it’s normalized to help others develop their arguments, so now everyone can benefit from political discourse. Instead of burning society to the ground, you can phrase your argument in a way that appeals to them.

· Keeping track of unsolved community issues and what needs to be done for them to be solved. This way, I can focus on making sure this community delivers on its mission.

· Allowing anyone an opportunity for redemption, but only if they write an apology piece. For them to be redeemed, this piece MUST show that they understand why their actions are wrong. It also MUST list a specific plan for what they will do in the future for them to not cause the same problems. When people don’t give others a chance to redeem themselves, they are no longer fighting for a cause, they are fighting against others. I don’t want Nonmonetized Together to be a place to attack people. I want it to be a place to attack problems in society.

· Only block users from the community if their behaviour is getting out-of-control. For example if users are actually causing people to feel unsafe or if there is a large-scale trolling attempt. Nonmonetized Together is supposed to be a place to actually find solutions to problems in the world. This sometimes requires some of the ugly parts of society to be shown. But, it does not require sickos to take over the community spreading fear and trauma.

· Not using “mentally ill” as an excuse to shut people down. Also, making sure other people here are not doing so. This article explains how I will create a culture where “mentally ill” refers only to is original meaning.

Helena Lopes/Unsplash

· Being careful where I work. I cannot work at a job that is too political or else I may be coerced into removing its #svalien context. If readers ever find where I work, I want them to feel comfortable with the knowledge so that it won’t create a conflict of interest.

· Only existing on certain websites. Nonmonetized Together is not appropriate for members-only websites because I want anybody to be able to access them. It also has to be on a website where I can create my own environment, so nothing like X or Facebook where all public posts are all tossed together in a “for you” page. What I mean by this is a website where you have to click on an article to read it and it will appear on a new page. This could help keep Nonmonetized Together safe from people who don’t want anything to do with us. And finally, it has to be in a long-form format so people don’t feel the need to distort the truth by condensing it. That being said, you’re free to make your own #svalien community on other websites. I’m just saying there are good reasons Nonmonetized Together is only on Medium and write.as.

· Pointing out the positives of comments that are completely wrong. Even if they’re so wrong that you think, “that person has no hope.” Well, by finding a strength to their comment, I can at least provide some direction in their life. If I only mention everything negative about their posts without saying something good, maybe it will alienate them from Nonmonetized Together, as well as further society, and will cause them to degrade in weirdo onlone echo chambers. If I mention positives, Nonmonetized Together can be the place that breaks this feedback loop. Also, when I point out positive aspects to bad comments, it lets other people know that I’m open to what they say and that I’m not just dismissing whatever they say. This would let people know that all they need to do is fix up their comment.

· Apologizing if a user is giving someone a hard time and reiterating the troublesome comment in a nicer way. Hopefully, this can help kill the toxic discussion and turn the conversation into something valuable for readers and participants.

Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

#Manifesto #Society #Politics #Internet #Svalien

Discuss...

Image from Windows/Unsplash

Usually, I will try not to write articles from a position of authority, but I will have to make an exception in this case, because this article will be meaningless if I don’t show I have knowledge in the field. Besides, this article still fulfills my mantra of helping the public prepare to be active, empowered, knowledgeable participants in society without the interference of power interests. So, I did receive a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology. You can verify this by going to the website YuVerify, clicking on “Begin Your Search,” making sure you’re on the page “Search by Name,” and then typing in my name Kevin Zuccherato.

Please be aware that this list is not exhaustive and will be continuously updated.

· Academic sociology papers use lots of technical and unfamiliar terminology, but that shouldn’t scare you off. Set yourself apart from academics by writing in terms that the public can understand. Sociology isn’t complicated enough that it needs to be conveyed through specialized vocabulary, but universities do that anyway, keeping laypeople’s voices out of the knowledge-creation process and preventing the masses from contributing to social change. For your study to connect with the public, you can’t write it like an academic journal.

· When planning your study, make sure you explicitly state what falls within the scope of your study and what doesn’t. For example, if you’re studying employment, you must decide whether you want to study all employment, if you want to focus only on full-time employment, or if you want to research other employment arrangements. If you’re studying violence, make sure you have an idea of what forms of violence you will be studying. Even if you’re studying all forms of violence, list all the forms of violence you can think of, just so the reader can feel reassurance that your study is well-structured.

· Do some research on sampling techniques and choose the one that’s best suited for your study. This page is a fantastic resource for learning about sampling techniques.

· Your introductory section should contain your research question, your scope (as mentioned earlier in this article), and an argument stating why your project is worth carrying out.

· If you’re not a member of an academic or corporate institution, ethics boards won’t be interested in reviewing your plans. Because of this, let your readers know that you are not a professional or trained researcher and that this precludes you from submitting your paper to an ethics board.

· When describing your methodology, note where you will be collecting your data, how much data you will be collecting, and the data’s time span.

· Also in your methodology section, be sure to constantly refer to the scope you’ve set in your introduction and show that you are consistently applying that scope to your data.

· Assess the ethical quality of your study.

· Near the end of your paper, discuss the weaknesses of your study and speculate on how it could have been better. This will open up new topics for other researchers to explore.

· If you used questionnaires or an interview guide in your study, place them in the appendix, located at the very end of your article.

Hopefully this will inspire you to collect meaningful data that could help guide people to develop strategies for a better future!

Article also available at https://medium.com/illumination/checklist-for-an-amateur-sociology-research-paper-2165ddc99919.

#List #Sociology #Research #Advocy #Empowerment

Discuss...

This article was originally published to Medium on February 22, 2022 (https://medium.com/illumination/6-simple-strategies-for-becoming-unprejudiced-e0243c2a7bfa).

Just wanted to mention that I noticed this story does not match the egalitarian tone that my blog is meant to express. It was written shortly after I joined Medium, back when I didn’t have as clear of a plan for the types of articles I wanted to write about. However, I felt the article was important enough that it should be kept online anyways.

When the article was posted to Medium, the article was originally published on the ILLUMINATION publication, not Nonmonetized Together. Now, by posting it to write.as, this article can finally be published to Nonmonetized Together. Even though I try to make sure my Nonmonetized Together articles do not speak from authority as much as the article you’re about to read, I felt it should be saved onto write.as because defeating prejudice is a critical component of Nonmonetized Together.

Here are some tips you can use to help yourself treat people fairly and avoid double standards.

1. Question your environment

Sometimes I hear people defend someone’s actions by pointing out that they are a product of their environment. While this may be an accurate explanation, it’s not an excuse. Neglecting critical reflection should not be normalized. It can be all too easy to take what you have grown up with for granted and assume that it is the right way of doing things. Questioning it can help you realize its areas for improvement, keeping you humble while working toward a better future.

2. Don’t reduce individuals to a low number of descriptors

Microsoft Office stock image

Remember that people are complex. Don’t let your entire understanding of a person be limited to a few characteristics — or worse, just one characteristic. If you don’t know someone well, remember that there is a lot about them that you haven’t learned yet, so it’s too early to jump to conclusions about who they are as a person. Some people have done very bad things, but if you define the person by those actions, you will end up forgetting about good things they have done.

3. Don’t describe groups as if they’re individuals

The only exception to this is if you are referring to a requirement of being in a group. Otherwise, you promote prejudice by applying an attribute to an entire group. It’s not even good enough to add that there are some exceptions among the group, as you already manufactured an association between the group and a concept. Negatively depicting a group fosters prejudice against them, but positively depicting a group runs the risk of double standards in the group’s favour.

4. Always try to help people, no matter who they are

Microsoft Office stock image

Obviously, don’t do anything to let yourself get manipulated, but helping people improve is very important. It will allow you to realize that everybody has challenges and that we are all just trying to get by. It’s awful how poorly some people treat abusers, for example. Imagine where society could be if they helped the abuser realize that they are not worthless and decided to help them get over their problems instead of harassing them. Abuser or not, if you do a good job at helping someone, they will appreciate that, which may result in building positive social bonds with them.

5. If you respect others, they will act more respectable to you

It’s that simple.

6. Don’t call out people as hypocrites

You know, not everybody someone will say will be 100% consistent. They may forget other things they said, they may change their mind, or they may struggle to be as motivated as much as they once were. It makes more sense to gently mention the thing that is making the person’s words seem a bit “off,” and ask for some sort of clarification.

#Discrimination #Equality #Prejudice #SocialJustice #Philosophy #Equity #Acceptance #Peace

Medium comments:

Don’t describe groups as if they’re individuals

I agree with you here Kevin.

But I believe that the reverse is also true, in that one shouldn't do it.

To prescribe charateristics (real or imagined) of a group to an individual is, I believe, just as destructive.

Thanks for the read.

Michael Zwierzanski

Yes, that’s true

Kevin the Nonmonetized

---

You have a point. Like actually people and the world is complicated yet our attitudes have the great responsibility of making the world a better place! Thank you for the amazing article, Kevin! :)

Darian

Glad you enjoyed it

Kevin the Nonmonetized

Discuss...

This article is also available at https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/bd9250b20408?source=friends_link&sk=1421604e20ca9291996f98e38a741741.

What goes through your head when you hear religious figures discuss the eternal suffering of sinners? In a worst-case scenario, a follower may feel validation for hating and abusing sinners, who in return, may feel unloved, depressed, and paranoid. Putting someone through extreme torture is as cruel and merciless as it gets, so some people are unable to reconcile it with love or acceptance.

So I came up with an idea for avoiding this worst-case scenario. You can use this idea with your own religion or a religion you’re not a part of, it doesn’t matter. I’m just trying to create peace and harmony between people who are faithful in a religion and people who choose to live a sinful life.

My idea is to view sinners the same way as the world views participants in transparently dangerous Internet challenges like the car surfing challenge. It would be strange to view these people in a vitriolic way. We can love these people as much as we want, but that does nothing to change the fact that these activities can cause huge negative repercussions. These people don’t deserve to die from these challenges, but you can’t say they aren’t asking for it either.

#Religion #Afterlife #Hate #Love #InternetChallenge

Discuss...

This article is also visible at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/dear-2088-im-sorry-that-you-re-society-is-doomed-due-to-2023-internet-misusage-9909d150161c.

Mimi Thian/Unsplash

Hello 2088, I’m from 2023. I’m here to apologize for the irresponsible ways my society has used the Internet and how it resulted in social disaster for your society. Anybody from the 2020s who agrees can write their name in a comment on this article. This way, they can let the future know where they stand.

I fail to understand how people can be given a platform that contains almost all the relevant information in the world and that allows them to communicate to almost anybody instantly, and then still manage to screw it up this badly. They’re given the world at a low cost and then waste it on trolling, blocking people, spreading misinformation, and making negative generalizations about groups of people.

I study online social interaction with the same inventive attitude as people who study technology and medicine in 2023. It pains me to say that the vast majority of problems caused by Internet interactions are easily avoidable. Depending on the situation, it can be a matter of just asking people before making assumptions, being willing to be proven wrong, trying to understand someone’s perspective before shutting it down, or not expecting the opposing political side to immediately understand the subtext of your political views without telling them.

Just because I’m from 2023 doesn’t mean I wish to be associated with this online culture. I’m very concerned with how it will affect your lives. And the issue cannot be solved by university researchers because the people who’ll benefit from these changes will not be reading academic publications. It will actually be solved by people who post about the situation on the Internet. This way, they can work from within to cure the affliction.

Tim Marshall/Unsplash

Yet the problem is too widespread for any one person to make any large-scale changes, so I took the initiative to carve a small corner of the Internet where people have no incentive to display such careless behaviour to the masses. The final result is Nonmonetized Together, a social hub where anybody is free to suggest, develop, and receive feedback on ideas for making the Internet a better place. Well, not just the Internet, I mean the physical world as well, but the solution to a lot of physical world problems starts with considering how Internet communication plays a role in the problem. Accessible through Medium and the Fediverse, Nonmonetized Together takes advantage of the idea that people’s decisions and beliefs can be influenced by what they read on the Internet, and that we have the power of making a positive or negative influence.

How can I be certain that people on Nonmonetized Together will not benefit from deliberately causing trouble? Well, every word I write and every decision I make for this community is made with the intention for avoiding side effects that generally come with social media. Maybe founders of some other online communities do the same, but what’s unique about Nonmonetized Together is that this is its main purpose. It’s not to share memes, discuss a fandom, repost articles, or anything else.

This means that Nonmonetized Together will also attract people who want to see positive change on Internet communities. These people will focus on being compassionate, articulate, inspirational, and patient.

I believe that even if anyone tries to provoke outrage within the community, they will be unsuccessful because their approach will stand in opposition to the motivations of the community members and their contagious positivity. Many other communities let their emotions get the best of them and try to “defeat” the troll, giving into their toxicity and the rest of the Internet’s negative atmosphere. Instead, I’m counting on the community to provide peaceful and logical responses that will instead frustrate their attempts at rage bait instead of getting sucked into them. Perhaps this could be done by focusing on their unnecessary nature of the junk comments, not their shortcomings.

Brooke Cagle/Unsplash

On the other hand, people who flat-out ignore small-scale trolls are just as toxic as the trolls themselves. I get that large-scale attacks can go out of control and needs to be shut down in those cases, but I’m talking about small-scale trolling.

It’s frustrating to see so many people fall for the advice to “ignore the trolls” without making the link between that and the social unrest in 2023. People keep saying they wish society wasn’t so paranoid and hostile, yet it seems like they want to do everything BUT directly respond to the causes. Websites in 2023 either remove inflammatory comments or encourage them. Nonmonetized Together is the only online space I can think of that aims to hold people responsible, turn these incidents into positive learning opportunities, and provide a better world for our children and grandchildren.

In 2023, people really seem to think that ignoring Internet trolls takes away their power, but ignoring them would likely mean the troll would just move on to someone who would give them exactly what they want anyway. So, ignoring them does nothing at all.

To make authentic social progress, people must react in a way that will not satisfy the disruptors, and that is what I am hoping to do here. As Bishop Robert Barron wrote, “[t]o turn the other cheek is to prevent [one] from hitting you the same way again. It is not to run or to acquiesce, but rather to signal to the aggressor that you refuse to accept the set of assumptions that have made his aggression possible” (50).

Another feature about Nonmonetized Together is that it aims to have a level playing field. Now, competition over resources, power, and influence is great from a social justice standpoint, but I hope people will be discouraged from it on Nonmonetized Together (I’ve never seen anybody attempt it on here before). I just feel that there should be at least one online community where people can share knowledge without worrying about running into those who care more about attacking them than anything they have to say. Imagine coming up with a great idea on Nonmonetized Together, being able to run it through a noncompetitive community, test it out in an environment with a level playing field, and only then taking it out into the wider world and using it as an ideological weapon. The opposition’s ideas wouldn’t stand a chance because they wouldn’t have the same screening process.

This requires the users and me to have an awareness of the inequalities present in the outside world, be careful that they do not take over Nonmonetized Together, and be willing to learn about the existence of inequalities they were previously unaware of. If people do attempt domination tactics on this community, hopefully they will be devalued by the wisdom in other members’ ideas and responses.

Nghia Le/Unsplash

For a couple reasons, I feel like I’m a great candidate for making sure Nonmonetized Together doesn’t fail. First, because I’m extremely honest but try to be sensitive to other people’s feelings at the same time. I’m motivated to be honest because it is socially rewarding, because I struggle to lie convincingly, and because I don’t like feeling guilty.

The second reason is because I have realized I don’t need any more political power than I already am given. Because of this, I trained my brain to stop affiliating with any political sides. This way, I could leave it up to the readers to take ownership of their own political activity on Nonmonetized Together, instead of being under my political control and influence. I also chose to seek meaning from Catholicism instead of politics, and the result is that I’m more willing to inspire others than bring down people I disagree with.

Inspiring others is what Nonmonetized Together is all about. I’m that sure the left, centre, and right all have their own ways of being inspired by what they read on here, but all that matters is that they are inspired positively and productively. If you feel that this does a better job at supporting future generations than the current state of the Internet in 2023, sign your name in the comments section, but be honest! Historians may look back at this post and trace your name to your online activity.

References

Barron, Robert. Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith. Image, 2011.

#Future #Power #Internet #Sociology #Activism

Discuss...

Image created by AI tool DALL-E 2, the author has the provenance and copyright.

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/i-may-be-a-bluepiller-but-im-not-evil-b752f3acbfe0?source=friends_link&sk=eecc74a1e70351205a8466649fca0ccd.

It’s sickening that there are people who tell complete strangers online that their most painful struggles are imaginary and that if they just ignore the pain, things will get better.

For example, I’ve seen this attitude expressed towards one of the most depressed and isolated communities on the Internet — the “blackpill.” This term refers to an incel group founded on the belief that no matter what they do, they are predetermined to never find someone who will fall in love with them. They’re also extremely isolated due to the blackpill philosophy being at odds with mainstream society’s understanding of relationships, which the blackpillers refer to as the bluepill. So, on top of feeling lonely, they also feel that no one outside of the blackpill understands them.

Some may notice the unbearable mix of anguish and hopelessness on blackpill forums and wonder why anyone would choose to be a blackpiller, but you have to remember that people don’t choose philosophies, they adopt them based on their experiences and the evidence presented to them. Hence, some bluepillers have suggested that even though blackpillers show a lot of hate towards women, they may just be lost souls and that they deserve mental health support from bluepillers.

While I am not opposed to this suggestion in theory, I keep seeing bluepillers use this as an excuse to message blackpillers they don’t even know, insisting that the bluepill is the way to go and that they can find love if they just adhere to a predetermined handful of bluepilled strategies. This would be tone-deaf even if they were just messaging other bluepillers who struggle to find love, because these are complete strangers and because things can be more complicated than that. But considering they are talking to people who are convinced that a) blackpill philosophy is real, b) that it is taking away their reason to live, and c) that the bluepill ignores these issues? Unbelievable. I can only envision this isolating blackpillers even more and worsening their mental health.

The first rule of making someone feel understood is to take their current situation into account. Based on what I’ve seen in my life, the bluepill is accurate, not the blackpill, but I need to remember that this does not reflect the blackpillers’ experiences. What do you do when talking to someone who already believes there’s no solution to their loneliness?

Why not just tell them: “I can understand that you are going through mental agony, and I’m sad that you feel this way.” End of story! Then you might make them feel more understood without advocating for the blackpill.

I hope that if any blackpillers are reading this, that I’ve shown them that bluepillers don’t necessarily have to be blind towards blackpill struggles. They may never take the blue pill again, but at least they don’t have to feel so hateful towards mainstream society after all.

#MentalHealth #Isolation #Society #Culture #Loneliness

Discuss...

Medium comments:

Maybe no matter what color pill someone identifies with, self-obsession is the culprit of their flaws. For instance, self-loathing and self-exaltation are two sides of the same coin. The key may be to stop thinking about yourself to feel better about life.

Robbie Newport

Interesting point. Yeah, it would be great if people cared more about people they talk with online and what they're going through. Think of it this way. The Internet allows you to communicate with people you would have never been able to talk to in person. If people embrace the Internet from this perspective, instead of using it to reinforce the type of bonds they make in real life, then maybe that will help them use the Internet to be less self-obsessed and more understanding of others.

Kevin the Nonmonetized

Article also available at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/update-44b92ef9e16?source=friends_link&sk=e0a0f5959e59a7585dd26d6c8108b4a5

I have been saving this community’s Medium comments onto its write.as articles and vice versa. I wait three days after the comment is posted before moving it over. If you made a remark.as comment to this blog but don’t want it cross-posted to Medium, send a comment or PM to my discuss.write.as account and it will be taken down. Same applies for preventing Medium comments for going onto write.as, except you would send a private note in that case.

If you want to respond to a Medium comment without signing in to Medium, make a comment with your message along with the name of the person you wish to talk to. I will send it to them as soon as I can.

Discuss...

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/this-writing-strategy-will-prevent-people-from-misunderstanding-your-argument-59bad7d9535c?source=friends_link&sk=c9385350b8d6d09c90db2e195c539701.

The background information in a piece of persuasive writing can easily be misinterpreted by readers as supporting evidence for the main argument. Less commonly, the supporting evidence for the main argument can be misinterpreted as background information. In reality, background information and supporting evidence serve very different purposes. Poor communication between reader and writer can arise when the writer fails to clarify which sections are background information and which sections are supporting evidence.

So, what’s the difference between supporting evidence and background information? Supporting evidence provides an answer to the question, “why is your main argument sound?” It can help readers grasp why someone could think your main argument is worth considering. Readers can decide whether they agree with you by comparing your main argument’s supporting evidence with the supporting evidence of other theories.

On the other hand, background information is used to clarify the supporting evidence and/or the main argument. Background information contextualizes the rest of your text, helping prevent you from running into communication problems revolving around different meanings of the same words. It precedes your supporting evidence so readers can get in the same headspace as you when they read the supporting evidence.

To prevent people from confusing your background information with your supporting evidence, you can organize your text into three sections: background information, main argument, and supporting evidence. If you choose to use this method, each of these sections should have their own paragraph, with a heading that states which section each paragraph corresponds with. Otherwise, it might not work.

Mixing up background information and supporting evidence results in a complete defacement of what the writer was trying to say. Once it occurs, the reader and the writer are understanding things so differently from each other that the cause of the conflict can be difficult to detect. Before cancelling someone over something they wrote, make sure to confirm with them which parts were background information and which parts were supporting evidence. You might be surprised.

Since misinterpretation can happen in any environment, these guidelines can be applied to any form of written communication. If I were to apply them to this post, paragraphs 1-3 would be background information, paragraph 4 would be the main argument, and paragraph 5 would be the supporting evidence.

#Communication #Writing #PersuasiveWriting #Miscommunication #WritingTips

Discuss...

Photo by johnhain on Pixabay

You can also view this article on https://medium.com/illumination/overcoming-life-challenges-by-working-on-emotions-348e13e40ec0?source=friends_link&sk=27f30551226ea96415db5e6f2069990d

I have some papers with important messages displayed on a wall in my bedroom. These messages are designed to help me navigate life’s challenges and allow myself to feel happier.

One of the papers says, “deal with the world as it is, not as it must or should be.” I can see how this motto applies when people lose their temper after disagreeing with each other. In this case, an example for “dealing with the world as it is” would be to resolve the disagreement peacefully and respectfully. When people show their anger, they lose sight of that goal. Then, it’s no longer about coming across as someone that others would want to accept. Instead, it completely becomes about having things their way.

The statement “deal with the world as it is, not as it must or should be” does not necessarily advocate submitting to the status quo. You may find that your beliefs and values are at odds with the establishment, who are defining what “must or should be” the way to do things.

Another paper lists five components of emotional intelligence:

1. Knowing your emotions

2. Managing your emotions

3. Recognizing emotions in others

4. Managing emotions in others

5. Motivating ourselves to achieve our goals

I like to conceptualize this list’s fifth item as a tool to manage the first four items. Some form of motivation can definitely be useful considering how challenging it can be to keep track of four things at once. What makes it especially hard is that sometimes when applying one of the skills in the list, you may find that it makes an impact on how a different skill on the list should be carried out. This could mean that even if you already think you had one of the components handled, you may need to return to it and revise your decision in a way that cooperates with other components.

This is a perfect example of why emotional intelligence is such a demanding skill. No wonder people don’t always succeed at it. It’s important to decide what matters the most to you and consistently use it as motivation to succeed at emotional intelligence.

Another one of the papers has four tips: speak with honesty, don’t take anything personally, don’t make assumptions, and always do your best. The older I get, the more obvious it is that following these instructions will reduce miscommunication and conflict. I also think they are the keys to a successful online community, so I set them as standards for Non-Monetized Together.

Thank you for reading this article. I appreciate your comments, but before you respond, please remember that I’m not some sort of self-help guide or expert. I’m a student in life, just like you. It wasn’t me who wrote the messages on my wall, either. I just found them useful and I wanted to share them with you.

#SelfCare #Emotions #Relationships #Reminders #OvercomingChallenges

Discuss...

Medium comments:

“deal with the world as it is, not as it must or should be”

The old is/ought problem.

You can't get an ought from an is.

Unfortunely, many people seem to have 12 million opinions on what things ought to be, and never looking at what acutally is.

I totally agree with you Kevin. It is much better to accept thw world and act one's best in it, rather than trying to change reality to suit ones own wants and desires.

Michael Zwierzanski