Page 2 of 3

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:50 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
you did see the part in the OP about how I'm not judging all of those particulars one at a time, but just throwing a bunch of stuff out there for a rough picture of the kind of axis I'm looking for a name for? I don't see an RV in a driveway and think "this person is a boor", any more than I hear someone likes sports and think "this person is a boor". And honestly I don't really notice clothing or jewelry on people themselves, just walking around, it's more about hearing people talk about how important showing off the right brand of bling is to them. And like owning an RV or liking sports, that's not really a thing that offends me in itself anyway, but was just another brush stroke in the rough painting of a typical boor I was making in that first post.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:01 pm UTC
by sardia
Based on what you're saying, I'm sympathetic but I don't really approve. Some of your examples are ok, rolling coal at someone but others aren't.

PS rolling coal uses similar modification in order to haul really heavy payloads. It's not entirely a waste. Though it's like Nascar for hauling. The art supercedes the original purpose.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:10 pm UTC
by SuicideJunkie
it's more about hearing people talk about how important showing off the right brand of bling is to them.
I find that sort of open fakeness/hollowness particularly grating.
Fashion is bleeding people of money while making them wear uncomfortable/impractical things.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:21 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:Before making judgements, ask yourself if you are seeing the real person, or the Facebook cartoonish version.


Facebook kind of is exactly the thing he's complaining about, though. All image, no substance. At least for many, who are posting about where they eat, what they bought, etc. A carefully cultivated fake image of life.

The fact that they maintain a cartoonish front tells you they're the kind of person that needs to maintain a cartoonish front.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:03 pm UTC
by sardia
How's your Facebook feed compare to the cartoonish versions? My Facebook is in hibernation, so it's been a while. My dated example is people who post about their vacations and wisecracks about their great jobs. I felt slightly jealous about his life. I also found out that he quit his job soon after posting. He was hiding his unhappiness about his job. Would that count as a cartoonish front? If so, how meaningful is knowing that about them?

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:27 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
I use Facebook relatively little these days. However, your example seems to still be fairly relevant. People over-represent the good things to present a good image to everyone.

It's pretty much the same thing that some people do in real life. Brand new clothes and a false smile on their face, even when life is crashing down around them. I think knowing that tells you a bit about what they value, and how they need to be perceived.

Sometimes it's a good deal more facile. Some folks are big on selfies, some are big on documenting the food they eat. I think both are sort of similar, in that they seem to be a form of bragging. I'm not particularly offended by such things on facebook, after all, it's easy enough for me to not use it, or simply avoid those people. On the flip side, I don't have a terribly high opinion of them. The approach of valuing appearances over substance seems a bit hollow.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:44 pm UTC
by Leovan
The part I hate about Facebook is how my wife reacts to it. She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure because she hasn't accomplished all four things at the same time. She's only studying law, interning at a law office helping low-income immigrants, she's lived in Europe & US and traveled Africa, and she has a husband and a cat (unlike 3 of those 4)... But each individually sounds more accomplished than what she's done. And naturally since her only contact is over Facebook, she doesn't know anything else about their lives except the awesome things they portray.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:11 am UTC
by ucim
Leovan wrote:She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure...
She needs the equivalent of four people before they, together, measure up to her, alone.

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:47 am UTC
by Leovan
ucim wrote:
Leovan wrote:She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure...
She needs the equivalent of four people before they, together, measure up to her, alone.
Jose

That's what I keep telling her...
The point is these are all possible directions she could have taken in her life, all things she wishes she could do. It's impossible to do all at once because they're sort of exclusive, but when you look at Facebook and the profiles show happy people, maybe you made the wrong choices in life? You only get one chance to accomplish everything you want to try in life. Life is a buffet but you can only try so much... You get amazing people (and I may be biased claiming my wife is amazing) doubting their own life choices based on a one-sided portrayal. I hate that effect.
And that basically seems to be part of what Phorrest dislikes. People who put their lifestyle out there and don't like to be doubted. Have a smaller car, they obnoxiously roll coal to show you their superiority. Don't enjoy sports, they become pushy about their favorite team/sport. Basically make themselves feel better by making others feel worse and hide their own weaknesses. At least on Facebook you simply don't mention your troubles, while in real life they have to trumpet their successes in your face to hide them. Down side is Facebook has a much bigger reach.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:06 am UTC
by sardia
Getting hit by peer pressure is really annoying. Luckily you can start disengaging from your "friends" until you have a smaller tighter core group. For example, my cousin loves designer clothes/bags/accessories etc etc, and wanted me to join in the spending. When I did try to spend some, I didn't get any enjoyment out of it, nor any validation from them. It was easier to just disengage from them, and hang out with them less and less. Now it's much more enjoyable to see them once a year, because we spend time catching up instead of the toxic rat race stuff. Distance/time does make the heart fonder, and I think it's much better this way. You only hear their shit once a year, and rarely does it make a impact.

TLDR ditch your crap friends, and make more.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:43 am UTC
by elasto
The part I hate about Facebook is how my wife reacts to it. She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure because she hasn't accomplished all four things at the same time.

I sat down with my pre-teen and had this conversation with her: The fact that people can use social media to be mean to each other is kinda obvious; The fact that something like Instagram demonstrates a selection-bias - the fact that everyone always presents their best side - is a less obvious psychological danger.

You see all the amazing things other people choose to show you; You don't often see the misery and the angst. That's true of selfies which are typically posed and managed, and it's true of accomplishments. So the lawyer making career, you won't see her regret over spending too little time with her loved ones etc. It's perfectly possible all four of your wife's friends are less happy than she is, but she might never know it.

Instagram is something alien to our generation; There's still a "keeping up with the Joneses" aspect for us - except with the Joneses being 'everyone else in the world' (or, at least, 'everyone we've ever met'). Having grown up with it, though, hopefully my daughter's generation will be able to see through that nonsense and keep things in perspective. She'll see that 'everybody lies' and hopefully the peer-comparison-pressure will be something she can largely shrug off.

(Neither her nor her friends use Facebook though; They see that as an 'old person' thing :D)

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:37 pm UTC
by ucim
elasto wrote:(Neither her nor her friends use Facebook though; They see that as an 'old person' thing :D)
Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:48 pm UTC
by elasto
ucim wrote:Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

How does that matter particularly?

Facebook is bad because people pool into echo chambers forwarding clickbait to each other. Twitter is bad for much the same reason, except with more anger and trolling. So far as I can tell, Instagram is much more of a powder-puff lifestyle type app. It's main danger seems to me to be people making themselves feel bad by comparing their lows to everyone else's apparent highs. Avoid that trap, then block the ads, and it seems to me that Instagram is pretty benign all things considered.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:18 pm UTC
by ucim
elasto wrote:How does that matter particularly?
Social media companies make their money by selling your personal information, in one way or another, after making it more valuable by aggregating it. It matters little what face is put on this espionage ring, if Facebook owns it, Facebook gets the data. Ads are the least of it - a red herring even.

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:53 pm UTC
by elasto
ucim wrote:Social media companies make their money by selling your personal information, in one way or another, after making it more valuable by aggregating it. It matters little what face is put on this espionage ring

In which case why ask if Facebook owns it? Why would it be better if Google or Microsoft owned it or if it was independent and selling on data?

Ads are the least of it - a red herring even.

Well, quite. That's why I mentioned them only in passing. I worry much more about my child getting lost in echo chambers than drooling over a new pair of sneakers.

Anyway, your argument seems to be against all social media apps, not Facebook especially. Expecting people not to use social media to keep in contact with friends is simply unrealistic. My daughter's generation anonymize their personal info and many use multiple accounts and that's probably enough of a precaution for now.

You and I disagree about how worrisome it is for firms to have our personal info anyhow. I'd rather teach my kids about how firms try to manipulate your attention than attempt to turn the clock back and ban them from using any of it.

You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:21 pm UTC
by sardia
elasto wrote:
ucim wrote:Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

How does that matter particularly?

Facebook is bad because people pool into echo chambers forwarding clickbait to each other. Twitter is bad for much the same reason, except with more anger and trolling. So far as I can tell, Instagram is much more of a powder-puff lifestyle type app. It's main danger seems to me to be people making themselves feel bad by comparing their lows to everyone else's apparent highs. Avoid that trap, then block the ads, and it seems to me that Instagram is pretty benign all things considered.

All the algorithms are coded the same way. Whether you like a Facebook Trump post or a racist Instagram photo. They'll pair them with other related posts that you'll like. Other extremists posts.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:24 pm UTC
by SuicideJunkie
Promiscuity is not a good thing in either case.
Friends should be actual friends and you don't need a big corp to share stuff with them.
Where are the chats and IMs?
Also, independence and single-player games are underappreciated.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:32 pm UTC
by Weeks
elasto wrote:You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?
That's a hell of a comparison! Maybe contraceptives aren't quite the same as not having a profile on Facebook.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:45 pm UTC
by Chen
Weeks wrote:
elasto wrote:You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?
That's a hell of a comparison! Maybe contraceptives aren't quite the same as not having a profile on Facebook.


Well in terms of what you tell your kids to do/not do it seems pretty apt. Telling your kid to not use social media at all but not prepare them for how to protect themselves with regards to it seems pretty similar to telling your kids not to have sex and not telling them how to avoid STDs and getting pregnant. And while the impact of unprotected sex is likely greater than that of unprotected social media use, the latter can still be dangerous. Cases like Amanda Todd or Phoebe Price are examples of that.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:08 pm UTC
by elasto
sardia wrote:All the algorithms are coded the same way. Whether you like a Facebook Trump post or a racist Instagram photo. They'll pair them with other related posts that you'll like. Other extremists posts.

My daughters don't like the posts of strangers.

SuicideJunkie wrote:Promiscuity is not a good thing in either case. Friends should be actual friends and you don't need a big corp to share stuff with them.

Exactly! You get it! Sex is best practised with those you are closest to, and carries the greatest emotional risk when between strangers. Likewise with social media. For example, all their posts are private and they don't accept any followers that they don't know IRL.

Where are the chats and IMs?

Oh, by far most of their time is spent on WhatsApp. Instagram is for sharing selfies and group pics. Youtube is the only other app to really get a look in, and they know the comments there are filled with idiots.

Chen wrote:Well in terms of what you tell your kids to do/not do it seems pretty apt. Telling your kid to not use social media at all but not prepare them for how to protect themselves with regards to it seems pretty similar to telling your kids not to have sex and not telling them how to avoid STDs and getting pregnant.

Bingo! Humans are social animals and teenagers the most social animal of all. Demanding abstinence in either sphere is not preparing them for life.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:25 pm UTC
by sardia
Your adblock won't work forever, and you can't control the ads they do see.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:37 pm UTC
by elasto
sardia wrote:Your adblock won't work forever, and you can't control the ads they do see.

Agreed. Nor can I control all the other myriad ways people will try to manipulate them - from their peers to the media to everyone else.

Rather than try to wrap them in cotton wool, therefore, I don't try to insulate them from the world but instead teach them self-reliance: to find meaning in your own achievements rather than in the praise of friends or strangers - that the only standards you have to live up to are you own; to be wary of your cognitive biases and to spot when others try to use logical fallacies or manipulations against you.

It's not that it's a foolproof strategy, it's that it's the only strategy that has any chance of success...

Telling them not to use social media isn't going to help with any of that...

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:39 am UTC
by ucim
elasto wrote:In which case why ask if Facebook owns it? Why would it be better if Google or Microsoft owned it or if it was independent and selling on data?
Facebook is far more powerful than an independent, and can do more with the data itself. Facebook is somewhat worse (more blatantly dishonest) than Google, and quite a bit worse than Microsoft.

If there are big monsters and little monsters, the ones to preferentially not feed are the big ones.

elasto wrote:You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?
The risks and their sources are different. I would certainly advocate abstinence-only when it comes to putting (your own) sex acts on you-tube. But I'd also teach them why, what the dangers are, why they are dangers in the first place, and how to mitigate them. That's important because they will make their own decisions anyway.

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

elasto wrote:For example, all their posts are private and they don't accept any followers that they don't know IRL.
Fine, but Facebook knows and tracks it all, and turns it into a profile they sell to others. When Facebook says something is "private" it doesn't mean Facebook isn't still reading it all. And that's where the danger comes from.

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:09 pm UTC
by SuicideJunkie
ucim wrote:And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.
For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:48 pm UTC
by sardia
SuicideJunkie wrote:
ucim wrote:And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.
For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.
hobby or
User supported forums is your best bet. If they make money from the store instead of ads, they may not sell your data until they go under.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:12 pm UTC
by ucim
They'd need something to attract the right users in the first place; perhaps a webcomic would do it?

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:29 pm UTC
by Zohar
ucim wrote:They'd need something to attract the right users in the first place; perhaps a webcomic would do it?

Jose

It would help to put a link to the board from the main page, probably.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:57 pm UTC
by ucim
Zohar wrote:It would help to put a link to the board from the main page, probably.
What? And let the riff-raff in?

September's coming! Build a wall! :)

Jose

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:08 pm UTC
by EdgarJPublius
SuicideJunkie wrote:
ucim wrote:And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.
For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.


There's always the diaspora project I guess?

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:32 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
SuicideJunkie wrote:
ucim wrote:And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.
For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.


Pretty much.

People are people, regardless of how you monetize their interactions. Yeah, it might somewhat slow the echo chamber sorting, but people self sort into echo chambers anyways, so...I'm not sure how much could actually be accomplished here.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am UTC
by Meticulac
I think raucous versus demure gets at the dichotomy Phforrest was trying to convey pretty well.

As for this side-discussion on social media, I ought to take the time to write down a description of how I think I'd like a distributed communication platform to work some time. Scuttlebutt and Solid are interesting, though. Not sure how any design could get people to not make unrealistic comparisons of their lives to others, aside from just having a reminder at the top of every page.

As for other problems related to social clustering, I'm not sure about that either, but just letting people live multifaceted lives might help. Maybe make a thing that promotes what's least popular, or gives suggestions of what has roughly even odds of being what you'd like or not? Just have all the accounts on a site arranged on a grid so that any given cluster of people following each other can't get too tightly interconnected? Encourage small world network connection patterns ( https://ncase.me/crowds/ ) in some way?

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:51 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
It occurs to me all of a sudden that Donald Trump is the perfect encapsulation of the difference between the two kinds of "class" I'm looking to distinguish.

Economically and socially, he is definitely upper-class, no arguing it.

But he is just as definitely not classy at all.

And seeing not-classy "ordinary" people conspicuously flaunting their wealth upsets me more than seeing not-classy poor people for basically the same reasons seeing Donald Trump upsets me. It's a person who least deserves any special privilege, flaunting all the privilege they have.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:52 am UTC
by elasto
It's grating isn't is.

Maybe it offends our sense of natural justice: We try to maintain a pretence that 'bad things don't happen to good people and good things don't happen to bad people', but when someone totally lacking in class flaunts their gains it's something of an affront.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:24 pm UTC
by Zamfir
Then again, would a polished "classy" Trump really be better? There are born upper-class people who have learned (and pay for) a quiet superiority in their style and manners. I am not sure those are really better people than the brash and shouty kind. If anything, the lack of warning signs makes them more dangerous.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:17 pm UTC
by Meticulac
Another way of putting it might be compassionate versus those who do so callous people? I wasn't sure if that would be an apt descriptor before, or going too hard on the disfavored group, but Trump defining said group makes the latter seem much less likely.
Zamfir wrote:Then again, would a polished "classy" Trump really be better? There are born upper-class people who have learned (and pay for) a quiet superiority in their style and manners. I am not sure those are really better people than the brash and shouty kind. If anything, the lack of warning signs makes them more dangerous.

I'm sure there's people capable of appearing very compassionate based on their personal conduct/forms of recreation while actually being quite callous in policy-making at some position of power, but that's harder to pin down in terms of getting a feel for whether you'd like to hang out with someone if they're aren't well known enough to be famous for what they do.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:19 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Being superficially classy isn't good enough, for sure; there could still be reasons to dislike a person, especially a person in a position of power, other than their mannerisms or demeanor. But it is still an improvement in a person's quality that they be classy, it does make them more likeable, even if it's not enough to make them really a good person. Of course, there are good points to be made wrt people like Trump that them being unlikeable is a social good, in the same way as poisons tasting bad, but that doesn't make "tastes bad" better than "tastes good".

Also, as for the wealthy being able to afford that comfortable superiority of mannerisms, that's why I said I give poor unclassy people more of a break than rich ones. Poor classy people are positively admirable for maintaining class in the face of hardship. Rich classy people are tolerable, but not particularly admirable for being classy, because it's easy to be classy when you're rich. Poor unclassy people are irritating but forgivable; I don't particularly want to be around anyone unclassy, but I get it if life is shit and you just can't keep it together anymore. Rich unclassy people meanwhile have no fucking excuse.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:15 pm UTC
by SuicideJunkie
Isn't "being superficially Classy" the exact problem that makes someone unclassy?
On the other hand, I'm not sure you can be superficially classy; if you're consistently classy in your interactions and act like a decent person, that pretty much makes you classy and decent. I suppose it is possible that someone is classy in public and then goes nuts privately when they get home, or somehow separates their interactions between subsets of the population, but that sounds like a lot of work and mental dissonance that's doomed to fall apart.

Also, it might be media selection bias, but "it's easy to be classy when you're rich." doesn't seem to ring quite true to me.
Being rich and/or famous seems to bias towards scumminess, and there aren't all that many classy rich people that I hear about. Possibly some of it is just to get airtime, but that is no excuse.

It should be easy to be classy when you're rich, but that's from the perspective of the Middle-Class I think. Actually being rich and not suffering consequences... I can imagine that twists people.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:29 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
SuicideJunkie wrote:Isn't "being superficially Classy" the exact problem that makes someone unclassy?

If by "superficially classy" you mean conspicuously consumptive then yes, but I was referred to Zamfir saying "There are born upper-class people who have learned (and pay for) a quiet superiority in their style and manners. I am not sure those are really better people than the brash and shouty kind". Someone being calm, quiet, polite, and civil in their speech is classy in that regard, but that speech might still amount to orders to do something awful or at least an awful opinion about something, and so being classy, in those superficial mannerisms where classiness is determined, isn't enough to say that a person is good or even overall likeable.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:56 pm UTC
by SuicideJunkie
I was treating likeability and goodness as a separate topic completely.
I'm pretty sure we can't stretch useful definitions to make classy, good and likeable into one blob.

There is probably a pretty big middle to the Venn diagram of it still.

Re: Class vs class

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:55 am UTC
by ucim
The key to "classy" is grace under adversity - that is, eschewing being a raging lout when provoked. This also extends to grace absent adversity - that is, eschewing being a dick when the opportunity to be a dick presents itself. In other words, class is taking the high road when it is either hard, or unnecessary.

Displaying class would seem to require these things; either significant adversity or its significant absence. There's is a lot of ground that is neither significantly adverse, nor significantly smooth, so some people (on each side) have a greater opportunity to display class.

Jose