[WJW]

> I don't like that Burning Man curator's quote calling their saying a form of "inclusivity" when it doesn't include the lurker.

Indeed. If you explicitly provide no space for spectators, that just means you radically reduce the set of people who want to participate at all. There are plenty of lurking-friendly spaces elsewhere so I don't think that Burning Man needs to change the policy or anything, but to pretend that it is super inclusive because the excluded group is not even present is just not true.

In fact, Burning man can be said to epitomize the western secular idea that individual freedom is the highest good. There are plenty of cultures where this idea is not considered to be true. Even in the US, you can find lots of (evangelical) groups that would find people having orgies, doing drugs, not praying and in a general sense indulging themselves without thinking about God and society an abhorrent idea. In general, all cultures where some sort of patriarchal/matriarchal hierarchy is the norm (ie the tribe elders get to decide for everyone what is best) would fare pretty poorly at Burning Man I think.

[bredren]

Just to clarify for those who have not been to the burn, “participating” does not mean orgies, drugs and going to parties.

The most valuable currency at Burning Man is ability. Participation can be thought more of as creative skill sharing with no expectation of compensation.

People who show up in fancy costumes ready to party stick out more than they blend in. This reality is distorted by social media, because sweaty dirty people doing shit doesn’t get likes the way glittery revealing clothes do.

> In general, all cultures where some sort of patriarchal/matriarchal hierarchy is the norm (ie the tribe elders get to decide for everyone what is best) would fare pretty poorly at Burning Man I think.

This idea is being challenged right now, as Marian and the rest of the board behind The Burning Man Organization have failed to handle the void left by the passing of Larry Harvey and complexity introduced by Covid.

Interestingly, the financial stewardship of the event and those who participate the most (qualify for presale based on previous participatory contributions) have been the key underpinnings of a corrosion in support for what is known as “the org.”

Burning Man as “owned” by this “non profit” group is not happening for the second year in a row in 2020. This is sensible but disagreements with how the board has handled people’s money and “donations” along with political failures around setting expectations has led to an upstart event is being organized in its place.

[xtiansimon]

>> “I don't like that Burning Man curator's quote calling their saying a form of "inclusivity" when it doesn't include the lurker.”

> “Indeed. If you explicitly provide no space for spectators…”

I think of this very differently. Burning Man has grown organically with the dawn of the Information Age. It is a product of it.

No matter how you use the Internet, when it comes to learning and engagement, look at the origins—sharing of scientific information. You are a scientist/artist. You do things. You publish and promote your work in the vein of the scientific method—-making reasoned claims of truth which a stand on their own merit until proven false. It’s not a stretch to make a similar statement of art.

It’s a virtuous cycle, no? If you are “lurking” then you are not contributing to the cycle but only benefiting from it. Not participating is a mistake, and failure.

It’s a mistake because the health of the Internet is measured in truth. The actual financial cost can be very low, creating your own original works and expressions of truth.

“The real world” is already full of spectators. We call them customers.

If there is a hypocrisy at BM, it’s that the cost and time investment favors individuals who have benefited (financially) in the real world from “lurkers” who are willing to pay a modest fee to get their information instead of using those costs to learn to participate and cooperate with others. The only real remedy for individuals who struggle to participate in their own is to organize and form groups. And this work is difficult and people’s feelings will be hurt and they will suffer cognitive dissonance with our dominant culture of consumption and consumerism.

So in the end I would take a line from within the Python community: be excellent to each other.

[WJW]

> It’s a virtuous cycle, no? If you are “lurking” then you are not contributing to the cycle but only benefiting from it. Not participating is a mistake, and failure.

Not necessarily. Your argument contains the premise that the choice is between lurking and contributing and indeed if that were the case then contributing is the more beneficial one and lurking should be discouraged. However the premise is false, because there is the third option of not participating at all.

Imagine a group of (say) ten creators, ten non-participants and zero lurkers. If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same. The total amount of enjoyment has increased. It could perhaps increase even more if the newfound lurker would also create, but that is not always an option and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[xtiansimon]

> “ If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same.”

I see what you’re doing here. If I signaled I was inviting an argument of this type, that was not my intention.

Peace out.

[WJW]

I didn't mean to go for an argument but am sorry if I did and hope you have an excellent rest of your weekend!