Thread about War and "Political Parties"

The thread about war has made me think about this. Because we do already HAVE wars (though not nearly as fun as the one Caleb mused about).

Then I thought, no, we don't actually have wars as much as we have political parties, albeit without names.

Right now, we have two major political parties. One of the is in office, and the other isn't. The one in office now likes to think the other party doesn't exist. The one in office now likes to think little the minority party has to say is valid, particularly not the fact that the ones in office are actually in office.

And the one in office now has the mistaken notion that they are ALWAYS going to be in office. And that the needs of the "country" or its citizens will never change.

Thinking more about it, I decided that neither of these parties is totally analagous, or even very analogous to the two rl major political parties in the U.S.

What's more, I decided drawing any parallels between those in SL and those in U.S. rl wouldn't be fun anyway, and would muddy the waters.

It's funny that we don't name these parties, because they are certainly very much there - and definitely based on fundamental differences in the way they think SL should be run. And they very much battle for power in the game.

Maybe the time for SL political parties has come. It's there anyway. Course, formalizing that fact would probably be a ridiculous mess. On the other hand, we could just name them something like the Pistons and the Hornets, or maybe the Red Hotties vs the Green . . . somethings.

In any case, I'm in one of them. The one not in office . . . yet.

coco

There's a political party "in office" in SL? Uh . . . what office? When was the election? I must have missed it. I assume you're talking about an imaginary grid-wide member government on this Web site, as I don't imagine you'd go so far as to call for a coup down at the LL office in San Francisco.

That aside, the two-party system with which I'm familiar in the US is horrible. And aside from simulations and strategy games, I can't see why anyone would want to purposely encourage functional replication of something so sadly broken. Woohoo, let's marginalize everyone who doesn't agree right down the line with either Red or Blue! Great idea!

There are more than two sides in any community (and the more issues a community has to deal with, the more variations in opinion there will be). Trying to jam everyone into two "parties" is either lazy, or manipulative.

Or were you just talking about the mythological FIC? If so, don't beat around the bush.

More like the FIC meets opposition.

However, "FIC" isn't my term. I look at this more as a developing community, and it isn't surprising that it would develop different points of view as it grew, much like different political parties develop in the real world.

coco

I don't think you're talking about "parties", Coco. You're talking about "factions". I'd be interested in knowing how organized the factions you speak of are. My impression is that one faction is based on the social networking of long-timers who are clear on two things: a common committment to SL, and a common belief in their own importance to the success of SL. The other faction consists of people who often find themselves in opposition to the first faction on various issues - or who have created that opposition.

But there's also a third "group": those who've largely taken their dialogue inworld to create small "regional" or "topical" factions - like N-burg.

While that may be the basis of an future adversarial political system, it's hardly here yet. You couldn't hardly call these groups "factions", let alone "parties", partly because there's no organization beyond an immediate common cause, partly because there's no unifying theme beyond "I don't like what you people are saying and doing" (all sides), and partly because there's no sense of how strong each group is among the general population.

I don't even think they're factions. I don't get a sense of exclusion.

Factions? I don't know much about political terms, but that sounds accurate, too.

I think the time has come for organized factions, then. Or parties.

coco

P.S., if Neuraltenberg represented a local sort of faction, wouldn't that be akin then to local interests, and thus the work of local political parties?

I think that putting names to "factions" and saying "you're either in the purple marmosets or the melted winebagos, pick a side! Oh you're not? Well what faction are you in then?" doesn't do any good to anyone, except for the few people who want to be in charge of those factions.

If you want to create an organized group of people with common goals so you can better facilitate the giving of ideas, great. Just don't tell me because I haven't "picked a side" that my ideas are useless.

Parties or factions or whatever you call them only do one thing, they provide a clearcut "opposition" that you can point to and say "they are what's wrong with Second Life." By saying "those people" instead of "Aimee" or "Jauani" or "Coco," you take away their individuality and assume that every person in that faction has the exact same ideas and all agree on the same things.

Right now I can agree with someone on one issue and choose to disagree with them on something else. If I get inducted to the purple marmosets, what will happen if i don't agree with our glorous leader on an issue? Do I leave and join the melted winebagos until the next topic of the day comes up, then go off and join the flying batholiths?

Unless you have one faction for each person in Second Life, it'll just make things worse than they are.

There are no offices to run for, so what are these parties supposed to do? Drink beer and do the Twist?

What it sounds like, Coco, is that you've bought into the FIC myth and want to mount organized opposition to whatever you think the FIC is or is doing. IE Coco is trying to rally supporters for her supposed "war" here on the forums.

Sorry, it doesn't sound like a fun game to me.

Edit: Although I was tempted for a sec to join a team with a name as cool as Purple Marmosets. hehe

That sounds kind of fun!

Once upon a time, at another site, I responded to this sort of baloney by starting a group called the Raging Kegger Party.

"Right now I can agree with someone on one issue and choose to disagree with them on something else. If I get inducted to the purple marmosets, what will happen if i don't agree with our glorous leader on an issue? Do I leave and join the melted winebagos until the next topic of the day comes up, then go off and join the flying batholiths?"

That is what I see as the problem, too. Seems like the guiding principles of a party (and this has nothing to do whatsoever with my other idea about Towards a New Civility) would have to be awfully broad.

On the other hand, I do love your names! So much, I can't even choose between melted winebagos and purple marmosets, but I think I will be a Melted Winebago.

As for "buying into FIC myths," Kim, I don't BUY into MYTHS, because I'm not six years old and because I don't have the intellect of a turnip. Mounting an organized opposition to some things sounds pretty good, though.

coco

P.S. I believe I would disagree with your assessment of my ideas as "baloney."

Coco,

I am curious why you always portray yourself as some kind of "indepenedent thinker" as if the rest of us (other than a select few that you point out as thinking like you) somehow have some hive mind. My thoughts, ideas, likes and dislikes are my own, as are yours. I often agree with some people's ideas, though I often disagree. I see people across the spectrum who are the same way. As someone who I assume you would lump into the "political party in power", please explain how you are independent and free thinking when you present your ideas, but my ideas are somehow part of a collective?

I push back against this because I don't think people fit so neatly into the us vs them scenario you are presenting here.

Since I imagine almost anyone can agree that inclusivity is what we all should strive for, isn't creating these kinds of arbitrary divisions and continuing to rail against the "other side" counterproductive and ultimately destructive? It's also insulting. Just because people agree with each other about certain issues doesn't make them some kind of organized cabal (yes I said it, cabal). It's no less insulting to have one's opinions lumped into that kind of imaginary group with insinuated bad intentions (like power and control) than it is to be accused of being an alt. If you want unity, strive for it. If you want division, don't trumpet it and then complain that you preceive it.

So what are you organizing to oppose, Coco? This all sounds pretty vague so far.

I'm in the "I personally think this is baloney" party. It's a party of one. No organization is necessary.

... and then there's your crazy, crazy free-thinkers like meself. I fully admit that I personally have more in common with your "early adopter" tech-types than TSO refugees and the like - but unlike many of them, I don't see any real fundamental conflict. The world both RL and SL - is big enough to contain it all.

It's ultimately no different than the "OH NO AOLERS!" phenomenon way back when on the 'net at large.

You sound completely sane to me, Aliasi. I've always thought that those who complain the loudest about perceived divisions seem to work the hardest to create actual divisions.

Hey, Chip, I already called baloney. Unless you want to switch your order to tuna or roast beef, I guess we're colluding. I hope our team gets the yellow jerseys!

Oh, right. I'll be the "I personally think this is hogwash" party, though roast beef does sound delicious!

are there really only to communities in SL? i thought SL was a much more complex game society than that. i just really don't see it with such polarity. maybe i have not been conditioned sufficiently by dialectic thinking.

I agree with Chip's and Kim's posts, and Jauni's even more so. I guess that means I am guilty of group think, right?

My understanding of Coco's points here: yet another claim that some "group" is responsible for Prokofy's banning from the forums. Just another sidestepping of responsibilty, in this case, Coco is doing it in Prokofy's stead. I guess the torch has been passed. So far, we have blaze ressurrecting old Prokofy threads, and posting Orwellian references (with the wrong character associations as Seth pointed out), and Coco posting vague, insinuative missives on his behalf.

At least we’re having a relatively decent conversation.

Kim, I sound vague because I am vague. That’s one reason I tossed this out for discussion.

“Since I imagine almost anyone can agree that inclusivity is what we all should strive for, isn't creating these kinds of arbitrary divisions and continuing to rail against the "other side" counterproductive and ultimately destructive? It's also insulting. Just because people agree with each other about certain issues doesn't make them some kind of organized cabal (yes I said it, cabal). It's no less insulting to have one's opinions lumped into that kind of imaginary group with insinuated bad intentions (like power and control) than it is to be accused of being an alt. If you want unity, strive for it. If you want division, don't trumpet it and then complain that you preceive it.”

Chip, I agree that inclusivity is what we should all strive for, but I don’t think it’s what we’ve got, or will ever have it. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don’t consider division into various political parties (for lack of a better term) to be counterproductive and destructive any more than such division is counterproductive and destructive to government in America.

“I am curious why you always portray yourself as some kind of "indepenedent thinker" as if the rest of us (other than a select few that you point out as thinking like you) somehow have some hive mind. My thoughts, ideas, likes and dislikes are my own, as are yours. I often agree with some people's ideas, though I often disagree. I see people across the spectrum who are the same way. As someone who I assume you would lump into the "political party in power", please explain how you are independent and free thinking when you present your ideas, but my ideas are somehow part of a collective?”

I think a person can be an independent thinker and still choose a political party. Generally people don’t believe EVERYTHING espoused by a party (or a branch of religion), but they are still able to choose the one that MOST represents them and their beliefs.

Yes, I would lump you into “the political party in power,” even though we might agree on more things than I might with others of the same party. And although I consider myself independent and free thinking (see my paragraph above), I don’t consider myself ALONE in a lot of that thinking. Even though you might consider yourself an independent thinker, neither would you deny that you have more in common with some players than others, in terms of all kinds of things, including the direction the game should go in.

Neither you nor I is more a part of some collective any more than the other one of us is. But I would say both you and I appear to be MOSTLY associated with opposite parties – although I can’t really say that without clear platforms of both parties. If such things could ever even be forged!

Thus I would see it as an “us,” a “them,” and several other “thems,” within the “country” that is Second Life (which of course, irl, represents people from all countries). Each of those groups (parties, factions) have things they wish to see happen., and their existence and disagreements are no more divisive than the divisions of political parties in the U.S., or of the divisions of different countries in the U.N. Or special interest groups lobbying congress.

I am thinking that some organization may be necessary in order that the smaller parties/factions might be able to present their positions better on the forums. Possibly.

coco

P.S. Cristiano, I don't run around the world proclaiming my being an independant thinker as a rule. But remember, I had a long way to climb up from being an alt of Prok, so it has been rather a point of mine to make on numerous occasions that, quite the contrary, I think for myself. In fact, Nolan still thinks I'm just relaying messages from Prok. Prok is a friend, and we agree on a number of things - that is all. Stressing that I'm an independant thinker has been necessary for me to become accepted as a person in my own right, and as you can see, that still has a ways to go.

I'm confused. I didn't realize there were two groups in SL. Which side am I on?

Coco,

Thank you for the response. I guess I have always perceived your "I'm an independent" thinker comments as more of you saying you think differently than the rest of us than an attempt to just say "hey, I am me, and this is what I think - not what Prokofy thinks or anyone else necessarily". It's all in the perception, so thank you for helping me to understand that - as you can see, it changes the tone considerably if you perceive it one way over another.

You are also rigth that we find common ground with people who share similar views. It is the same reason in RL that we have political parties. I spar endlessly with my friends who are Republican - in fact, I regularly shun Eboni because she makes me so mad I disagree wildly with them, but still respect them.

I think what we are starting to see as a society in SL is that it is beginning to mirror RL more and more - people have differing interests, agendas, hopes and needs, and they naturally gravitate in certain directions. Sometimes those needs are in direct conflict with the needs of others. I guess I would just like to see it be less of an us vs them mentality. I suppose I am shell shocked from Prokofy, but it just seems every time I see such polarization, it makes me cringe because it is not my experience in SL - my relationships transcend all of that.

One thing you didn't see because it occurred in the year prior to your arrival is the profound change SL has already gone through - the change in version 1.2 to the model of tier fees and GOM profoundly altered the landscape of SL for good and bad, most of which we are now enjoying the fruits of (and suffering the negative effects of). We had no ability to stop that change - it moved forward on its own. Whatever LL decides is the right direction for SL, combined with the growth forces that drive SL forward is what will determine where SL goes next, not the iron will of a particularly poweful group of players. SL is way too large and too fluid for any group to control it.

You are on the left hand side, second row, behind Jauani Wu.