Real life versus online behaviors

insomniac7809

@ganymede I agree that advice should be taken on its own merits, and I wholeheartedly agree that magazines like Teen Vogue and Cosmo are doing great work in their coverage.

At the same time, I think it's a bit harsh to assume that skepticism on Cosmo advice has to be sexist in nature, when people might be more familiar with relationship advice like "if he seems happy, it's because he's cheating on you; if he starts taking care of his appearance, it's to look good for the woman he's cheating on you with; if he starts sharing details about his day, it's to cover for what he was really doing (cheating on you)."

surreality

@insomniac7809 said in Real life versus online behaviors:

At the same time, I think it's a bit harsh to assume that skepticism on Cosmo advice has to be sexist in nature, when people might be more familiar with relationship advice like "if he seems happy, it's because he's cheating on you; if he starts taking care of his appearance, it's to look good for the woman he's cheating on you with; if he starts sharing details about his day, it's to cover for what he was really doing (cheating on you)."

I think this kind of thing is supposedly what they're trying to tamp down/put the brakes on somewhat. It still exists, but it is no longer more or less their sole content aside from ads and things like their infamous 'ideas inspired by 50 Shades of Grey' BSDM sexual experimentation list.

(Do y'all have any idea how long I have to sit around waiting for rainbow hair colors to set? I have absolutely browsed. And sometimes been caught mid-spit-take for my sins.)

Ganymede

I'll admit, I'm painting in broad strokes here, but, let's be fair: lots of people judge magazines like Cosmopolitan because it is tailored to a particular gender. Not everyone, yes -- but lots and lots and lots, to the point where it's almost meme-worthy to say "this is good advice ... but it came from Cosmo, so take it with a grain of salt."

Regarding the article you cited to? The veracity of the advice depends entirely on the reader and the subject. Yet the thrust of the article is, if your guy becomes secretive, changes his habits completely, or offers really detailed explanations where he didn't before, he may be hiding something ... and that something might be cheating. This isn't bad advice, but it's not 100 percent accurate -- nor should it be considered so.

If Cosmopolitan is to be judged on its basic (I mean this in a derogatory way) relationship advice, then go ahead and judge the advice so. But if you're going to go out and say "well, that sounds like great words to live by, but since it came from Cosmo, maybe not so much, ha ha", that rings in my head -- and maybe mine alone -- like saying "well, that sounds like a great investment advice, Becky, but since it came from you, a woman, I think I'll go with what Jim Cramer has to say, ha ha."

I don't mean to say that ThatGuyThere went that far, but I'm stepping in to say, hey, let's not disregard something or treat it as lesser simply because it comes from Cosmo.

ThatGuyThere

@ganymede
My comment about Cosmo was not intended to be sexist, just that most fashion magazines aimed at both males and females churn out crap tons of bad advice.

Edit to add: If Cosmo is improving then good for them but @insomniac7809 does point out exactly the things I think of when I think of Cosmo, granted I haven't looked at a Cosmo since i dated someone with a subscription in the early 2000s but in that era it was chock full of laughably bad relationship advice.

Edit number two: I would be just as dismissive if I heard advice came from Men's Health and Fitness unless it was strictly nutritional or exercise related. and yes there is plenty of shitty relationship advice in that magazine too.

Prototart

Teen Vogue's been p amazing the past, idk, two years

and I like just-normal-Vogue and Harper's Bazar

Seraphim73

@prototart Particularly Teen Vogue's online presence. Their magazine is alright, but the online reporting has been awesome.

Prototart

TV went online only in December

Seraphim73

@prototart They've had an online presence for well over a year though... since before Trump was elected.

mietze

I think gaming behavior can be very different than generic online behavior.

I have been surprised to see the “impersonal” antics of people I know when they’re somewhat anonymous on a forum with largely strangers or in what they think are closed door discussions.

But in my experience people behave /in community/, which I believe a game to be, mostly how they are in RL. Including the ability to mask their mean-spirited, manipulative, and/or very ill behavior for a time only to have it come pouring out once certain stressors/situations/temptations show up.

Three-Eyed Crow

@mietze
People get away with as much as they think they can get away with, in a lot of respects, and the anonymity of online interaction is pretty much just that magnified. Some of this is my being jaded from working IRL in fraud investigation but...people pull some shit if they think there are no consequences. And, by the same token, a lot of them will shape up and be just fine the first time they're slapped and made aware NO THIS IS NOT OK.

IDK, I think most people are OK. Not fabulous but OK. For better or worse, I don't think I'm much different on the interwebs than I am IRL, but I do think the absence of an immediate punch in the face makes people push the line farther than they would in the flesh. We ain't much different at our cores, though. If someone's engaged in manipulation and gaslighting online, I assume it's the same sort of warning sign as it would be if I found out someone was an animal abuser in real life. You probably won't go to jail, but this person is also probably lacking in some major humanity areas and distancing is necessary.

Mr.Johnson

I mean I know I'm different in the hog pit then the rest of the forum for the most part and different in Mush then the rest of the time and different still in real life just because you know different expectations.

Aint because I'm the worst thing since sliced hitler. Just you know it's easier to fool around on the hogpit where nothing really matters. I tend to rein it in a bit more for the general MSB, and I rein it in even further for actual mushing. By the same token I'll be open about some things I wouldn't be in real life on the forums, same for the mush side same for the hogpit side. However I'll be much more closed off about other real life things as a counter point.

I mean it's much less "Oh hey no consequences time to be my true asshole self!" And more "Well here's the confines I'm expected to work in time to make em work"

Eh don't think that makes sense but it might to someone.

surreality

@mr-johnson That, IMHO, is just a matter of adhering to the rules of a space. Which I'd call a good sign, not a bad one, really.

We should all be trying to do that.

There is one addendum to the anonymity thing: some people expose some things online without their RL ID attached due to concerns about stalking or harassment. It's also a thing. More than a few people I know online have been stalked RL, and it's not fun, so they may feel more free speaking about what they're doing, where they're going, and so on, in spaces where their RL name isn't attached for this reason also vs. RL social spaces where that information could get back to the harassing/stalking party through mutual acquaintances. None of this is bad behavior in almost every case, but it is another noteworthy 'difference between how people act online vs. in real life'.

Thenomain

Due to the medium, it’s easy to forget that people online are people.

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. I’ve both been that person and counciled those people when I was staff. If they don’t care when confronted with the fact, those are the people who I have no sympathy toward when escalating to dealing with them.

Deleted

I'm an equally an asshole online as offline.

I just express it in different ways.

faraday

@surreality said in Real life versus online behaviors:

@mr-johnson That, IMHO, is just a matter of adhering to the rules of a space. Which I'd call a good sign, not a bad one, really.
We should all be trying to do that.

I would disagree with that. Just because Facebook draws its line at "as long as it's not hate speech, you can be as cruel to each other as you want on this platform", does that make it okay to be cruel to strangers on the internet? IMHO no. Being a decent human being is a more-or-less consistent bar to clear no matter what rules a given online space may or may not have.

Arkandel

@faraday That's my constant peeve here. Just because we are allowed to be nasty to each other in the Hog Pit does it mean we should?

I hate it because it implies some people are only civil normally for fear of retaliation, which is a dumbass reason to act as a mature adult should.

Auspice

I'm p much the same online as I am IRL.

With the exception that I am a bit more capable of standing up for myself online than I am IRL. IRL, I tend to get too anxious and afraid and will hyperventilate and become a panicky mess. So I generally just end up letting people bully and gang up on me and shit because I can't find my voice. $:\$

So my GAD will keep me from being me from being able to stand up for myself IRL, but I can at least stand up for others.

But really, I just don't have time to 'be a different person' - that seems exhausting. Keeping up two personas? Shit.

faraday

@arkandel said in Real life versus online behaviors:

I hate it because it implies some people are only civil normally for fear of retaliation, which is a dumbass reason to act as a mature adult should.

But that's just human nature. As @Three-Eyed-Crow pointed out earlier, a TON of humans will act to whatever extent they think they can get away with. In regular society there are boundaries - social norms - that are not really "enforced" but have power because people care about the consequences. Peers thinking less of them, social ostracizing, etc. Those boundaries don't naturally exist online, so online communities have to create them. Without them, well... :points to hog pit, or Reddit, or Facebook, or....:

Arkandel

@auspice said in Real life versus online behaviors:

But really, I just don't have time to 'be a different person' - that seems exhausting. Keeping up two personas? Shit.

I'm told I intimidate people online. Which is weird since I'm not at all that kind of person iRL, nor is it something that I want to think of myself as.

@faraday said in Real life versus online behaviors:

Peers thinking less of them, social ostracizing, etc. Those boundaries don't naturally exist online, so online communities have to create them. Without them, well... :points to hog pit, or Reddit, or Facebook, or....:

What's still puzzling about it is that on Facebook or Reddit with their millions of active users, you can afford to not think of social ostracism as much; if you decide you despise me there's always somewhere else to take my despicable business to.

On a MUSH or even MSB the pool is so much smaller, and possessing a recognizable identity is super important - your reputation matters, which is one of the reasons being an oldbie often conveys advantages either formally or otherwise. On top of it people deciding you're worth the time of day matters since you can get invited to join groups and factions, get access to inner circles where RP happens and others look out for you to play with... which are all some of the main things we do in this hobby. I can't think of a single major activity that's not affected by how we are known and perceived by others.

It baffles me that anyone would casually put that at risk just so they can get a few textual swear words off their chest for a little momentary satisfaction.

Auspice

@arkandel said in Real life versus online behaviors:

@auspice said in Real life versus online behaviors:

But really, I just don't have time to 'be a different person' - that seems exhausting. Keeping up two personas? Shit.

I'm told I intimidate people online. Which is weird since I'm not at all that kind of person iRL, nor is it something that I want to think of myself as.

You're a teddy bear online.

I'd say it's probably the fact that you don't really use emoticons. A lot of people rely very heavily on these in lieu of facial expressions to 'read' emotion in text. When there's a dearth of them, the person can come off as cold, standoffish, etc.

I've noticed that since I've begun to use them more, people find me more approachable (at least my online relationships have grown and I integrate more easily).

I've never felt a strong need for them, but I also don't read body language and expression very well IRL either which is why text as a medium works very well for me.