Game of Feet to Fire

"Performative persecution" is game of feet to fire. "Meritorious consequence" is not. Though the former would that the latter be game too.

To this antonymous gamification, I ask: couldn't we all do with a little less... playing at fire? Alas, What's the harm! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... flame.

Game of Feet to Fire

 

    Preface

Game of feet to fire is antonymous gamification. Whosiwhatsit?

Holding feet to the fire is, ostensibly, what we do when we hold each other accountable. But when we game holding feet to the fire, we're gamifying.

We're scoring points. We're rewarding achievements. We're cheating to win. Because legitimately earning, say, a real badge of courage, is neither the why nor the how; much less the why or the how of holding feet to the fire. 

Games, as artificial as they are arbitrary, are gamed. Therefore when we gamify, say, accountability, neither the why nor the how is earnestly legitimate.

In other words, games of feet to fire need not really hold feet to the fire; whether via pretend or empty posture. Hence "performative persecution" is one such game.

*

     re: Governing platforms

There are two conflations that are the basis for governing platforms via laws written and championed by anti-technology advocates. 1: Technology is monopoly and monopoly is un-democracy. 2: Platformed speech is free speech and un-platforming is un-righting.

When baked into such conflations are assumptions unquestioned and unchallenged, such conflations are a means to cheat to win; pretend or empty posture; performative persecution.

There is real meritorious consequence to, say, algorithms and processes whose designs lack sufficiently robust integrity to identify and notify, for example, self-harm seeking. Not because gamification algorithms that reward harm seeking are (1) or (2).

Because the solution to (1) is "breaking up" technology and how exactly does this solve the actual problem of the case example above? Likewise the solution to (2) is "enforcing" platforming and how exactly does this solve the real problem of the case example above?

Such that (1) and (2) are nothing to do with we the people or public good; they're game of feet to fire. To score points; whether we are right of the ideological center or left.

*

     re: "All people are created equal"

Although a self-evident truth of equality is a bedrock of democracy; and equality and accountability are promised bedfellows; we fight tooth and claw for privilege; right; exception. From "qualified immunity" to "absolute immunity," we would accountability be its antonyms: favor; commutation; pardon.

Such that whether holding feet to the fire is performative persecution or meritorious consequence, such effort is gamed. Whereby miscalling meritorious consequence, performative persecution; and miscalling performative persecution, meritorious consequence; are the why and the how of not really holding feet to the fire.

Because democracy need not hold its believers accountable to its self-evident truths. Not when gaming feet to fire is winning loyalty left of the ideological center and right.

For who, then, is such erosion of a bedrock of democracy; and for what? We the people and public good; or we the blameless and justice toothless and inert?

*

     re: Populous popularity

There are real dilemmas that deserve meritorious consequence. The popularity of performative persecution, therefore, is nothing to do with real solutions.

From tools to privacy; from integrity to corruption; the questions that deserve answers, aren't answered by antonymous gamification. For antonymous gamification evades actual obstacles and mines instead depths of pointless point scoring; achievement rewarding; win cheating.

After all, I ask: couldn't we all do with a little more... resolve for results? Nay to results! and Yay to resolve! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... pander and posture.

Author's Note

save your whatabouts and buts, your shibboleths and juridications, neither game of feet to fire (above) nor notes (below) nor addendum (below) nor limited annotation (unpublished) are exhaustive

enjoy

M

*

Notes

     (i) "I ask: couldn't we all do with a little less... playing at fire?"

this is not playing with fire; this is playing at fire

as in, fire and brimstone and passion, etc.

played at, mocked, and artificed;

     (ii) "Games, as artificial as they are arbitrary, are gamed."

if the point of a game is to game, then regardless of the game, will there not always be those for whom the point is gaming? 

as for when and where fabrications and incoherence are carbon and oxygen, ethics is a four letter word;

     (iii) "In other words, games of feet to fire need not really hold feet to the fire; whether via pretend or empty posture."

backbone as costume is not holding feet to the fire; else telling bona fide nonfiction is costumed comic superhero;

     (iv) "There are two conflations that are the basis for governing platforms via laws written and championed by anti-technology advocates."

campaigns of governing platforms, anchored by antipodality to technology, include authorship of laws samewise anchored;

     (v) "1: Technology is monopoly and monopoly is un-democracy."

this and the conflation below (vi), employ emotionally charged illogic to play at making sense

needless to say, pitching a wet blanket at this fire-breathing smoke is beyond the scope of this note; that said, I say:

cutting newswires into eighths, does not make we the people more well-knowing; nor does cutting education into quarters, make public good more well-learned;

such that a whole newswire and a whole education are both invaluable towards technologies for we the people and public good;

     (vi) "2: Platformed speech is free speech and un-platforming is un-righting."

see above (v); moreover, I say:

speech that intends harm is neither a right nor right; else

platforming hostile doxing for the facilitation of targeted abuse; wrongful posts that subject strangers to senseless flame throwing for badges; invectives that rally would-be blameless mobs to violent recourse; etc.

is righting;

     (vii) "There is real meritorious consequence to, say, algorithms and processes whose designs lack sufficiently robust integrity to identify and notify, for example, self-harm seeking."

"sufficiently robust integrity" as, say, bulwarked against, say, gaming; that said:

that gamification algorithms that reward pleasure seeking also reward harm seeking, is unquestionably known

that an appetite for facing this known with question-asking and answer-seeking is budding, is meritorious consequence hijacked by, without irony, antonymous gamification;

see also below (xv);

     (viii) "Not because gamification algorithms that reward harm seeking are (1) or (2)."

because above (vii);

because flawed design isn't an immutable native feature of (1) or (2); notwithstanding neither the solution to (1) nor (2) is the solution to flawed design;

     (ix) "the solution to (1) is 'breaking up' technology"

false would-be facts and false would-be conclusions

would achievement rewarding be "winning" never mind who loses and what is lost because false is fire, amiright?

see also below (x);

     (x) "the solution to (2) is 'enforcing' platforming"

such solution sounds improbably facile, as such panacea eschews ugly beastly realities, for pander and posture;

     (xi) "Although a self-evident truth of equality is a bedrock of democracy; and equality and accountability are promised bedfellows;"

much like consensus is frictionless within tyrannies through deception

democracies, wherein equality is neither enforced nor ensured (as via accountability), are frictionless through evasion, denial, and opposition, that would equality persist as but figurative hyperbole; 

     (xii) continued from above (xi): "we fight tooth and claw for privilege; right; exception."

the existence of government (including governance intrinsic and extrinsic and so on) is the acknowledgement that abandoned to instinct, self-interest, and self-rule, civilization would consume itself

such that it is no surprise at all that privilege, right, and exception are still enshrined by we who would submit to no government but instinct, self-interest, and self-rule;

     (xiii) "From 'qualified immunity' to 'absolute immunity,'"

these and below (xiv), are examples of privilege, right, and exception

legally defended, won, and exercised;

     (xiv) continued from above (xiii): "we would accountability be its antonyms: favor; commutation; pardon."

see above (xiii);

although privileges, rights, and exceptions herein and above (xiii) have been exercised as corrective, such effort and such effort gamed are not mutually exclusive;

notwithstanding below (xv);

     (xv) "Such that whether holding feet to the fire is performative persecution or meritorious consequence, such effort is gamed. Whereby miscalling meritorious consequence, performative persecution; and miscalling performative persecution, meritorious consequence; are the why and the how of not really holding feet to the fire."

like gaming corrupts the meaning of winning (after all, cheating to win is not winning; it's cheating)

miscalling subverts meritorious consequence

poisoning the meaning of why and how we hold each other accountable (after all, favors, commutations, and pardons aren't holding feet to the fire);

     (xvi) "Because democracy need not hold its believers accountable to its self-evident truths. Not when gaming feet to fire is winning loyalty left of the ideological center and right."

will there not always be those for whom winning the loyalty of believers is worth fissuring a bedrock of democracy?

     (xvii) "For who, then, is such erosion of a bedrock of democracy; and for what? We the people and public good; or we the blameless and justice toothless and inert?"

after every point is scored, after every achievement is rewarded, and after every win is cheated

still standing would be who and what? no doubt, a consensus will be;

     (xviii) "There are real dilemmas that deserve meritorious consequence. The popularity of performative persecution, therefore, is nothing to do with real solutions."

it is so seldom that a real calculus of real solutions to real dilemmas "wins" a popularity contest, is it not?

see below (xix);

     (xix) "From tools to privacy; from integrity to corruption;"

with such examples of what's mocked for antonymous gamification

it is no mystery at all that we who game "winning" full-throatedly belove antonymous gamification; 

see below (xx);

     (xx) continued from above (xix): "the questions that deserve answers, aren't answered by antonymous gamification. For antonymous gamification evades actual obstacles and mines instead depths of pointless point scoring; achievement rewarding; win cheating."

can the point be gaming and legitimately earning, at the same time? this is gaming:

consequencelessness for the former thanks a bushel and a peck to we the 'what's the harm!' saying populace for whom the latter is decidedly true conditionally proportionate to self-importance and self-gain;

     (xxi) "I ask: couldn't we all do with a little more... resolve for results? Nay to results! and Yay to resolve! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... pander and posture."

meritorious consequence is that which is deserved and earned and merited, oblivious to popularity (flash in the pan or otherwise) or vote (of, by, or for minorities or majorities)

such that exponents of antonymous gamification who would subvert meritorious consequence for spoils and vengeance and disdain are but opportunists for whom pander and posture is road paved with "winning;"

etc.

M

*

Addendum 

     re: Technology

Whatever your relationship with technology, I ask:

Imagine legs. They're built by leg-builders. Arms: they're built by arm-builders. Not to mention, hearts and brains; they're built by heart-builders and brain-builders, respectively.

Moreover, let's imagine they're built by builders who speak the same language; let's call it Buildish.

When they're altogether assembled, as smoothly harmonious as any miracle of machinery, they'll work together.

Right?

If all the builders endeavor together, collaborate, and share a vision of their machine, what marvel, what culmination of genius such machine could be. 

If, however, all the builders endeavor alone - after all, their proprietary efforts are pit against those who would their economical or rushed or adequate efforts be enough - then, such machine is unlikely to be equal in every way, much less better and improved.

Now consider news. With so much content demanding so much awareness and so much engagement, are we well-informed? Are we better and improved now? Then consider education. With more teaching and more instruction more accessible than ever, are we well-schooled? Are we better and improved now?

When we consider capitalism, we rarely consider this:

Four orange vendors at a market. One sells overripe oranges soft and granular. One sells oranges dyed and waxed beyond credulity. One sells oranges visibly crawling with mealybugs and snails. (Nay pesticide! Yay protein!) The last sells practically perfect oranges. These oranges are the result of extraordinary research and development and painstaking cultivation; the mission of one orange-obsessed whateverillionaire.

Needless to say, three orange vendors would such free market correct its course. Because three out of every four orange buyers are buyers of practically perfect oranges, three orange vendors make a case to cut one dominant monopoly down to size. Now three quarters of market share are up for grabs as practically perfect oranges exit the market. Are three out of every four orange buyers well served by this better and improved market?

In other words:

Who loses and what is lost by less choice of oranges? Notwithstanding also: who loses and what is lost by more choice of education and news? Such that it's neither unobstructed markets nor corrected markets - that is to say, hallowed hallmarks of market capitalism - that we the people really value.

It's oranges three out of every four orange buyers actually consume. And educations that open real doors to employment and prosperity. And news that's actually newsworthy.

And technologies that are marvels.

Not because machines are successes or failures of whateverillionaires. But because technologies themselves are of incalculable value. Without which, are we the people and public good, better and improved?

When all is said and done when we lose sight of what is improbable without real scale and resources, will what's standing be a Frankenstein built by the greed of three orange vendors? Or will what's standing be a testament to just because we speak different languages doesn't mean we can't endeavor together, collaborate, and share a vision and just because we're as alike as apples to oranges doesn't mean a relationship with technology is fruitless for we the people and public good?

M

*

Addendum

     re: "What's the harm?"

An affirmative defense that would be vindication against meritorious consequence is playing at fire; it's disdainment of accountability; it's I did nothing wrong therefore I deserve no consequence!

Near and far and then and now, such subversion of reason impels us to witness I am therefore I am blameless! pave a road of unscrupulousness to trustlessness.

Ergo positions of What's the harm if I game to self-gain? aren't stands for rights or righting; they're excuses

for harm.

M