Deciding to have an adventure into unmild territories. This thread is a response to something I saw on game design Twitter today, but I won't link or mention anyone since it seems to be growing beyond origin. It's also not an attack!

Community positivity is not a real thing.

I can't go somewhere and buy a bag full of community positivity. I can't pick it up, decide to keep it in my backpack, or play with it like a ball. I can never have it, because it's not real.

Community positivity is also a real thing. We can talk about it, contribute to it, &c.

I just cannot have it. It's a thing that happens.

I think this is a critically important difference! Confusing these two realnesses leads to pain and suffering, if my own experiences with my own communities are any good examples.

Nobody *has* community positivity. Everybody can *do* community positivity. Someone might do that all the time, but they will never *have* that. It'll never be something in their backpack.

If we think someone *has* community positivity all the time, we naturally would be worried and even shocked when they don't act with it. After all, why did they choose not to use their community positivity when they had it all the time?

We are liable to be disappointed.

So here's the unmild part: labeling someone as a positive person is an act of violence.

By saying someone *has* positivity, we are giving them the burden of weight of a thing that doesn't exist. It doesn't make them more positive. It's actually a threat.

If you drop the burden of the thing we gave you, now clearly you have less of that thing called community positivity. Now you are a lesser person. Now you are a worse person. Now you are a danger and a poison to the community, because you have less community positivity.

Nobody has community positivity in the first place! It's a thing we *do*! And, like all the things we do, we sometimes can't do them!

That's not a fault! That's people being people! We all should have the freedom to feel weak and small and unwise. That must not be taken away.

If one were to be called a positive person explicitly, they may feel pressured to refuse that freedom. Or, rather, the freedom is denied, because they have to fulfill expectations and imaginations.

That freedom helps us cope when we *do* feel weak and small and unwise.

That's not a bad thing, inherently. We can actually enjoy the experience afterward, since feeling weak and small and unwise helps us examine the ways we feel that way. We can meditate and learn.

If that's denied, how are they going to meditate and learn?

If they act against weakness and smallness and unwiseness, not because they have overcome that, but because they are forced to come off as having overcome that... is that... real? Sincere?

Don't we >need< more sincere positivity in this world?

HOWEVER. Like I mentioned above, acts and actions can be inherently positive! It's those that we should praise! Many of us understand that actions are not inherent to the person. If someone can't do positive things all the time, that's less hurt and weight on the *person*.

We should care about people, so we should care less about people. Let's focus on actions and voices that are for community positivity, not inherent personality qualities. We should celebrate what happens!

Extra stage:
I do recognize that there are horrible people in the community and in the wider world. I still do not think horribleness is inherent to them, but the repeated choice not to act unhorribly does say a lot. I do think willingness to improve is something we can *have*.

A short sequel:
Though I used stronger words than I usually would -- I don't think you are less of a good person because you wanted to celebrate kindness and goodness in the community! It's just... a suggestion to shift the focus the next time.

Y'all are awesome.