Okay, but you should like, apologize for God must be atheist for calling him arrogant and a fool, when all he did was point out inconsistencies in your arguments.

Don'tcha' think? Like, take your own advice or something.

Most posts like this are usually full of shit, imo, but admit not as bad as that one lady posting virtual signalling psychology articles about her superior pacifism in the middle of a debate.

Unlikely. Idealists are idealists and we’re all ‘idealists’ to some degree.

Some also thrive on vitriol. I know I have from time to time. It’s simply best to disengage or practice writing in a disengaged manner.

Some people are worth paying attention too. Some people are also worth ignoring. If possible just allow those worth ignoring an occasional look in - they may surprise you, or help you surprise yourself.

Explicit humility only works in small doses. If we swerve away from saying anything without some degree of conviction (which can be construed as ‘arrogance’) then things get dull very quickly.

No that wasn’t my issue with him there. My issue with him was that he was not reading what was being said making claims about what I had and hadn’t said even though he admitted to not reading all the comments in the discussion. So I will not apologise to him for being arrogant, aggressive and adversarial.

Not to mention that if you would read what I said you would see that I agreed with some of it too. Do I have to agree with all of it? No. I’ll apologise if he does as I wasn’t the one acting like a child.

So please tell me which inconsistencies in my other discussion did I not respond to? Point them out please and please tell me exactly where I didn’t listen to those inconsistencies. Describe those inconsistencies and then point out where I point blank refused to listen I dare you?

Not there, dyou know why? because I was treating God must be atheist with respect up until the point I realised he was going to give none back. I’m more than happy to give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect but I won’t keep it up if I get none back. That’s just me.

“I never read all your other comments in this thread but the general ones, the ones directed at me, and some (but not all) of the comments directed at others.

I plead quilty to that charge.

Is it a site rule, or just your unnamed requirement by you which you spring on me now?” - god must be atheist

Read this, if a student said to me that he hadn’t read all of a book they were assigned and has no understanding of nuance in complex arguments then whatever he writes in response to it will be Subpar.

“Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.” God must be atheist

“By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. Luckily I never suggested that Optimism or Pessimism alone would be all that was needed. That’s no better than the theory of attraction nonsense peddled by self help con artists.” - my response

Look, agreement! So where exactly am I not following my own advice and where is God must be atheist following it?

Oh, not to mention that not a single one of god must be atheists responses was original they were all mirrors of other people’s responses.

“Most posts like this are usually full of shit, imo, but admit not as bad as that one lady posting virtual signalling psychology articles about her superior pacifism in the middle of a debate.”

If you think honestly think, collaboration, honest debate and admitting to ones own mistakes is what makes people full of shit then I don’t think we are going to get along and you should ignore my posts because I won’t be responding to you again. I’ve really not got time for people trying to make me feel badly just because they haven’t learned.

“This is a community and none of us, not a one of us here will be ever be perfect or correct in everything we say”

Yes, because saying what is true is such virtue signalling right enough. Seriously these are the responses to this? Think before responding.

“Some people are worth paying attention too. Some people are also worth ignoring. If possible just allow those worth ignoring an occasional look in - they may surprise you, or help you surprise yourself.

Explicit humility only works in small doses. If we swerve away from saying anything without some degree of conviction (which can be construed as ‘arrogance’) then things get dull very quickly.”

The second paragraph here is a bit of a “does not compute” moment for me because why would you say anything with conviction if you’re starting to think you might be wrong upon listening to a logical argument? Maybe this is my autistic brain making me not understand but if I am listening to someone, and they are disagreeing with me and say something which makes sense to me then why would I continue arguing that it doesn’t?

There is saying stuff with conviction, when you believe in them but we can all change our beliefs over time if we feel we might be wrong.

Personally, I’m more likely to value someone who is always wrong but aware of it than I am to value someone who’s right a lot of the time but throws a tantrum whenever they are occasionally wrong and won’t admit it.

Not even my step son who is five cares about being wrong so long as you help him figure out what the right answer is.

Once you learn how to deal with the pain of being wrong (psychologically accurate, it’s a pain response) the world is open to you really and things get easier.

The second paragraph here is a bit of a “does not compute” moment for me because why would you say anything with conviction if you’re starting to think you might be wrong upon listening to a logical argument? — Mark Dennis

Basically, if you have an idea then put the work in and present it as best you can. There is use in seeing what flaws others see by themselves rather than feeding them the faults you can see. Generally people interact to gain perspective.

Of course, if you have less weight behind what you’re saying then a little flip-flopping probably won’t hurt.

In more simple terms ‘steel-man’ your position and see what parts take a battering.

I feel like that’s what I was doing last night until god must be atheist came along and piggybacked onto someone else’s arguments which they had already put much more eloquently.

Can’t stand individuals who act like that.

I guess I just don’t understand what fascinates nuerotypicals about pointless competition and one upmanship. I’ve literally seen two people arguing for the same thing before but because they were trying to one up each other they genuinely believed they were arguing from different points. Its embarrassing to watch really.

Why can’t people just be happy that they are learning and growing together?

Listen, we are all here to be philosophers. While we may have differing views, cultures and backgrounds, let’s not forget we are here to increase our awareness, collaborate and seek knowledge. This is a community and none of us, not a one of us here will be ever be perfect or correct in everything we say and if you are trying to hold yourself to that standard then you are carrying an impossible to manage burden. — Mark Dennis

Perfection is a myth. There is no such thing, and impossible to be something that doesn't exist. I don't try to be perfect. I try to be logical. Logic, not perfection, is what many people on this forum are lacking.

To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect. It’s okay to be not perfect because nobody else is either. Even if perfection were possible, if you’ve ever played any video game with cheat codes activated for god mode etc, then you’ll know that it gets boring after awhile. — Mark Dennis

People blind themselves to the truth and will assail your views for that reason. The reasons people blind themselves to the truth are mainly because they have established an emotional attachment to the belief they are defending. Religion and politics are two of the main fields of philosophy where I see things get out of hand because the posters have allowed their emotions to dominate the conversation rather than their reason.

If we all used logic, it doesn't mean that we will agree. It means that the conversations will be intellectual, honest, and useful.

People blind themselves to the truth and will assail your views for that reason. The reasons are many - religion and politics are two of the main fields of philosophy where I see things get out of hand because the posters have allowed their emotions to dominate the conversation rather than their reason.

If we all used logic, it doesn't mean that we will agree. It means that the conversations will be intellectual, honest, and useful.

As none of us are perfect, it’s still important to understand that we won’t be 100% logical all the time. We are human after all and we have no control over what emotions we may feel, it’s understandable to get angry or upset when we engage with each other. So long as we are capable of finding time for self reflection and use logic to examine our more emotional arguments we can learn more about ourselves and the world. Forgiving ourselves for being human also helps.

Agree one hundred percent. Unfortunately, when it comes to behaving according to a standard of reasonableness, most people tend to feel they do, imputing defects to the other side when friction (inevitably) arises. Pretty much what Descartes says in "Discourse on Method":

“Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world: because everyone thinks he is so well endowed, that even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, have no habit of desiring more than they have. What it is unlikely that all are wrong, but this shows that the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is properly what is called common sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and as well as the diversity of our opinions does not come from what some are more reasonable than others, but only that we conduct our thoughts in various ways, and do not see the same things . For it is not enough to have a good mind, but the key is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues..."

Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world: because everyone thinks he is so well endowed, that even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, have no habit of desiring more than they have. What it is unlikely that all are wrong, but this shows that the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is properly what is called common sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and as well as the diversity of our opinions does not come from what some are more reasonable than others, but only that we conduct our thoughts in various ways, and do not see the same things . For it is not enough to have a good mind, but the key is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues...

This is one of my favourite views from Descartes and one I try to remember often. Thanks for bringing it up!

Surely some sociologists must have studied this online phenomenon?

Something about the anonymous, impersonal interface of a forum makes people less likely to accept the humanity of their interlocutors. People say a lot of things on here they would not say, and/or not say in that way to another human being face-to-face. (And I do not exempt myself from that, though I strive to be better.)

I suppose that can be a double-edged sword. It's too easy to become uncivil or even hostile, and certainly very easy not to seriously consider the validity of another's position. However, there is a freeing element also that allows for more exploration and/or honesty. It's possible that the negatives of the former too often outweigh the positives of the latter, however.

https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/03/the-unapologetic-society.html

They probably have although I’m having trouble finding any at the moment that deals specifically with the online discourse.

In the link there is an interest read and some links to more.

I think for philosophy, there are probably a lot more issues at play because it is not like most forms of every day discourse. Then you have the online element which as you said makes people a lot braver and more willing to say things they wouldn’t normally say otherwise.

With most people but especially with philosophers you also have something I’m calling the Iceberg effect.

Take the Optimism vs pessimism debate; a theme that seemed to form was that I wasn’t taking into account and was dismissing the political, social and technological factors.

This is due to the iceberg effect, that what you see is what you get and it’s all very surface level. The criticism was that my argument was deemed as not wholistic enough and that I hadn’t thought about X, Y and Z.

However, this is assuming that the iceberg on top is the full structure. That I am only what I say and write and nothing else when what I think before I write is actually very holistic. However, I could go onto any discussion here and make a similar counter argument, that it wasn’t holistic enough. Which begs the question, why isn’t every discussion titled “my philosophy of everything, taking into every account every subject and how they relate to each other with no compartmentalisation at all.”?

You can see the difference in language used here;

You haven’t thought about X, Y, Z.

Have you thought about X, Y, Z?

The first is somebody under the iceberg effect. The second is someone who is accommodating for it. This is why philosophers are expected to ask questions more than anything else.

Suffice it to say, people are like icebergs. You can assume that what is above the surface is all there is, but you’ll be missing 90% of the person that exists below the surface.

(Not to be confused with The Iceberg Theory or the Iceberg Illusion)

@thephilosopher You might like to weigh in here also.

You sound like an entitled manchild. No one owes you anything on an anonymous internet forum.

Okay, but you should like, apologize for God must be atheist for calling him arrogant and a fool, when all he did was point out inconsistencies in your arguments.

You sound like an entitled manchild. No one owes you anything on an anonymous internet forum.

I sound like? Was I speaking? Can you like, not like uh use like filler words and stuff because like, yknow like it makes you sound like sooooo unintelligent.

No one owes anyone anything on an anonymous Internet forum? Thank you for agreeing that I shouldn’t apologise to God must be atheist and proving my point. I’m surprised you’re still afloat with all the icebergs you crash into.

The predictable irony in your post(s) is astounding.

I guess I just don’t understand what fascinates nuerotypicals about pointless competition and one upmanship. I’ve literally seen two people arguing for the same thing before but because they were trying to one up each other they genuinely believed they were arguing from different points. Its embarrassing to watch really.
Why can’t people just be happy that they are learning and growing together? — Mark Dennis

Excellent question. Why do some people endlessly seek negative excitement and domination rather than collaboration?

I see it fundamentally as a repetition compulsion, a compulsive acting out of some ancient trauma in hopes of creating the fairy tale solution to the events that occurred and which can never be changed. But the trauma gets acted out over and over again, in a desperate attempt to make it right.

Of course, it can never be made right; it's the past. But cruel and callous people believe they have an upper hand, and I think they think it's cool to be mean, kinda like those kids in junior high school. So it's regressive, too: adolescent and infantile, emotionally immature.

Some folks' deep need to be nasty on this forum still makes my jaw drop from time to time.

Do you ever feel like they just keep needling at you too? Like you spend awhile trying to get through to them reasonably and then end up feeling bad when you lose your temper. Feels like intellectual bullying sometimes but this me vs you thing is so base to me. Need to learn to ignore certain people more I think (unless they start to be a bit more diplomatic I guess, people change)

Why do some people endlessly seek negative excitement and domination rather than collaboration?

@uncanni probably addiction. I can get caught up in dominating if I feel like the other person is trying to compete instead of collaborate. But I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t feel good sometimes to feel like you are dominating and I think this is the core conflict in most people. It can be addictive and I think I saw someone here a few days ago mention feeling like they were high on nicotine in some of these debates but can’t remember who.

I’ve known for years about my personal addictive and obsessive tendencies. Although sometimes it surprises me how quickly we can even become addicted to that which should be all good for us. Like studying ethics haha

Do you ever feel like they just keep needling at you too? Like you spend awhile trying to get through to them reasonably and then end up feeling bad when you lose your temper. — Mark Dennis

This is exactly what trolls do. I did quite a bit of reading on trolls over the summer, and you have characterized the game they play to a t. Here's part of what I wrote up:

These are the characteristics which trolls display:
• They have "a desire to cause damage to the community" (Buckels). They can't deal with others' happiness, so they spread gossip and negativity;
• They are "intentionally malicious" (Hardaker): they "operate as agents of chaos on the Internet.... If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement" (Buckels);
• Online anonymity makes it easier for them to reveal their shadow, or the shady, unacceptable parts of ourselves--greed, sadism, selfishness, hatred, etc.--that we disown or deny: "When acting out hostile feelings, the [troll] doesn't have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors 'aren't me at all'" (Suler). In fact, it's amazingly easy for people to justify their cruelty towards others, but it lacks honesty.
• They display anti-social personality characteristics: narcissism , sadism , Machiavellianism (especially, the need to deceive, manipulate and exercise power over others), and a complete lack of concern for others' feelings. "Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun . . . and the Internet is their playground!" (Buckels).
• They like to polarize discussions, pitting one group against another with differing views (Anderson), thereby transforming a rational exchange of ideas into emotional mudslinging;
• They sabotage topics and veer discussions off course; they enjoy "luring others into useless, circular discussion" (emph. added) (Hardaker);
• They like to have followers who worship them;
• They hate to see the rational, democratic, and tolerant exchange of ideas online. This kind of exchange puts all participants on a horizontal plane of equality and maintains politeness and respect for difference; people agree to disagree and feel free to express their own take on an issue without fear of criticism.

This is the state of the world that we are living in. But I believe that we can exchange ideas in a genuinely dialogic manner, which means that I welcome your ideas as a means of mobilizing my own thinking--as opposed to a monologic approach, which seeks to establish sole authority on what the truth is, to diminish and belittle others' ideas, and to silence opposition.

Wow. This is extremely helpful! I need to do more research on trolls, my fiancé is the troll slayer in our family hahaha

But I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t feel good sometimes to feel like you are dominating and I think this is the core conflict in most people. — Mark Dennis

It does feel good to "dominate" the discussion (although I prefer for a term like convince or enlighten to dominate) if you are able to persuade your interlocutors that your argument is correct and superior. The problem is when people start throwing all kinds of irrational and irrelevant distractions into the discussion; then it's been sabotaged. And then there's no chance of having a reasonable, enlightening discussion.

Yeah the term dominate leaves a dirty taste in ones mouth. Enlighten is an ego trap, convince and persuade are probably the more neutral terms. However with trolls it can leave the grounds of neutrality pretty quickly.

This is extremely helpful! I need to do more research on trolls, my fiancé is the troll slayer in our family hahaha — Mark Dennis

I was just going to leave this forum, but decided to stay. I'm glad I did: there are some really smart, articulate people I love to read.

We all have to find the right way to deal with trolls. Just remember not to follow them down the rabbit hole of a completely irrational and digressive discussion.

They like to have followers who worship them; — uncanni

This is an interesting line. I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone whom I consider a troll who has any apparent fans or following.

Most posts like this are usually full of shit, imo, but admit not as bad as that one lady posting virtual signalling psychology articles about her superior pacifism in the middle of a debate. — Swan

I like your sense of humor.

Why do some people endlessly seek negative excitement and domination rather than collaboration? — uncanni

That's a deep question. IMV, the philosophical canon is itself full of 'negative excitement and domination.' I view it as a battle of 'final vocabularies' that depends as much on rhetoric as it does on logic.

As we discussed before, I think the only way to avoid becoming a dominating evangelist is to prioritize an ideal, symmetric relationship. I don't claim to find this easy. The 'negative excitement' is always tempting.

Don't leave! I enjoy having you here that’s for sure.

This is an interesting line. I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone whom I consider a troll who has any apparent fans or following. — Artemis

When troll really makes it, no one calls him or her a troll anymore. Calling all the philosophy that came before a bunch of confusion, for instance, seems trollish. Yet philosophers have done this sort of thing and become respectable.