I find myself once again yearning for a digital community. I believe the future of social media (for me) is some kind of invite-only group chat where the conversation flows like a river. It might live in Discord, Slack or even IRC, I don’t care¹. Physical community is important but as a millennial I need text-based friendships too.

On Friday, I got a message from kerey on WhatsApp saying that “there is a need for a non-normie consortium”. It triggered a long conversation about the normie/non-normie dichotomy and whether this type of distinction is elitist or not. I collected my thoughts on this in Against the Non-Normie.

This type of interactions is at the heart of my ideal community. An off-hand remark starts a discussion where we argue and develop the idea and in the end this turns into some kind of writing. Then this writing gets responses from other members in the community in a variety of forms. A community that perpetually creates discourse for discourse’s sake.

This is not something that I might just land on. This type of community requires someone to build it from the ground up. “Somebody has to, and no one else will.”

Speaking of Against the Non-Normie, I feel a bit uncomfortable about that piece. I believe what I said there but I feel uneasy because of the process I wrote it with. During our conversation, kerey raised the similarity between non-normies and queer community. Since gender studies and queer theory are not my forte, I asked Gemini to make the connection:

So I used AI. This might be an acceptable use of AI but I also copied two sentences from its output:

• “The ’normal’ (heteronormative) subject only exists because it has successfully ‘cast out’ (abjected) anything that threatens its boundaries.”
• “Reclaiming ‘Queer’ is an act of strategic essentialism; it’s taking the site of your own exclusion and turning it into a fortress for survival.”

These are not things I couldn’t write myself but they were just sitting there for me to copy them. But the fact that I copied them verbatim into my post makes me feel ashamed. I don’t believe this stains the whole post and makes it slop though. Maybe I think too black-and-white about the AI problem. This will be a problem I will need to navigate in the near future.

I wrote five different paragraphs to start this post and couldn’t stitch any of them together. So here are all five fragments.

My ability to do good is limited by my ability to work with others.

---

Three years ago multiple earthquakes devastated the southeastern region of Turkey. The things we saw were unimaginably bad. Within a few days people started organizing to collect food, clothes, sanitary products etc. I participated in none of it. One day, I felt disgusted with myself. A disaster happened; people were trying to collectively do what they can and I did nothing. Was I really this distant from the people around me? The answer was yes—I was that distant and alienated. I guess it’s no coincidence that I was also depressed as fuck.

---

There are some words that crumble if I try to define them. Agency is one. I’ll try anyways, even though it feels a bit cringey: Agency is your ability to enforce your will on the world. This definition might sound authoritarian, but I don’t think it is. “Enforcing” takes multiple forms. A ruler enforcing their will upon subjects is definitely the authoritarian version. But can’t there be a collaborative version? Like encouraging or even persuading others? Walking the path for a few steps, then turning back and waving for others to join you?

---

There is a motto in software development that I really like: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” It highlights the importance of collective agency. People getting together to build something is a powerful force that no individual can compete with, no matter how “agentic” they are. Unfortunately we’ve buried this feeling. But it’s down there and always ready to be rekindled. Collectivity is the core of the human condition. We are collective beings. We help, influence, persuade, abuse and oppress each other. No matter what we want to accomplish, it involves “the other” in some way or another.

---

Jenn writes about this collectivity of Effective Altruists (EAs) choosing the most effective charities for donations. It used to involve arguments over complicated spreadsheets in forums. Choosing the most effective way to use money to help others was a collective effort. Now, this is left to “professionals” who curate lists for EAs to choose from. I don’t think being a middle-class philanthropist is what Effective Altruism is truly about.