I like Anne's metaphor a lot.
Yes, there is privilege, yes, it's been earned. Pointing out this fact is just a bit gauche.
I don't think it's gauche to say there are some people who have earned respect. What I do think is gauche -- extremely so – is to bring it up in a way that makes it clear you think you're a Special Buffista with Sparkles. Playing "my respect is bigger than yours" is the equivalent of screeching "Do you know how I am?" at a nightclub doorman when you once had a bit part on a second-rate sitcom, while the real stars calmly wait their turn in line.
All Buffistas Are Foamy, for me, is not an elevation of conversation. But quite the opposite. It's social lubricant, that much is true. But it has the exact opposite effect of elevating.
I agree with this, too. Saying it as a blanket dismissal of discussion of social status ends conversation. I think what's more useful is to say that all Buffistas are people, imbued with certain basic human rights, etc; if that's the meaning of "foamy" (and I think it mostly is), cool.
So it doesn't bother me that lurkers vote. If it was clear to the vote counters that nefarious lurkers were tipping an election, then I'd care. But I see no reason to think that's happening.
To me, social status on this board is largely expressed through trust, respect, and inclusion. As an example, I know that when someone who's been in Spike's Bitches since the thread started on TT posts that she's had a bad day in the thread, she's going to get more sympathy than I will. But she's also posted more sympathetic messages to other people having bad days than I have. It's the whole "you get what you give" phenomenon, and expecting it not to happen would be absurd.
I think it's probably for the best that none of that is made more explicit or more powerful than it has to be, in part because that allows people who want to claim power within the community to do so through action rather than through, say, electioneering.
Yes. You can't just decide you're a Special Buffista with Sparkles and insist on the privileges thereof; you earn that status by being an organizer, a doer, a thinker – or just a funny and compassionate voice that rises above the others.
I don't think we have identical senses of who the Sparkly Buffistas are; I think we all have individual quirks, and someone who's been here forever from the POV of one poster may seem like a complete newbie to me. But I do think that if we all made a list of the people who we think are More Equal than Others, there would be a number of names that would crop up on almost every list – again, because of what they did, not because of any insistence.
And I don't think there is or should be a platinum card.
I don't like the 'social core' words, although I understand them and maybe even agree with them at some level, because I have a gut reaction to the phrase "social core" which is basically "oh, yeah. The thing I will never be a part of".
This sentiment I understand too, Am.
In fact, while I would submit that there are core Buffistas, I think every last one of us would give a different list of who that core was, so it's still pretty amorphous and unquantified.
Also? Not all of us would necessarily prefer talking to that core over some other collection of Buffistas. While there may seem to be a gravitational center, some of us may prefer to look at the pretty satellites spinning around the edges.
Mostly I do think we are physically attractive(I'm a fake. One day you'll unmask me and find the creepy caretaker at the Meyers place.And I'd have gotten away with it too, except for those meddling Bitches.) But that doesn't mean I want to jump everyone.
We've got a frontier metaphor and a space metaphor working here and that can only mean one thing--B.Org IS Firefly.
I don't think it's gauche to say there are some people who have earned respect. What I do think is gauche -- extremely so – is to bring it up in a way that makes it clear you think you're a Special Buffista with Sparkles.
I'm not sure "respect" is the best word. Maybe "context" would work better.
If someone who's been around a while starts to do something strange, we're more likely to think that X is just having a bad day. Because we know X is normally witty, or insightful, or a little too serious, or whatever. So we cut X some slack in context of X's history. Let it slide, or gently ask if something's wrong.
But if newly delurked Y does the same thing, we don't have context. We can't tell if Y is having a bad day or just a jerk. And it becomes easier to do a knee jerk and assume the worst.
And that's normal in social groups. We act on what we know.
Almost forgot, Debet feel free to tag.
Just wanted to chime in that I'm enjoying reading this theoretical discussion very much. And all Buffistas are foamy. And all lurkers should have a vote. And I loved Anne's frontier analogy, especially the porn room. Enjoy the holiday weekend all.
Longtime (since TT) dedicated lurker chiming in here to say I love the community here and the way it solves problems and supports people. As to lurkers' voting, I myself would never feel right in voting here because I am not an active participant. I wonder if other lurkers feel that way.
And one of the reasons I mainly lurk is that the majority of you are so quick-thinking and articulate that by the time I think of something to say, someone else has already said it so much better! All I could add is "Wrod!"
Whoot! It's like I conjured you up, Margaret. Except for the part where you already existed independent of my delusions.
Now I want to just keep namechecking and see who appears.
