I think that many regulars of this forum would say that I often get into fights, or that I "troll" people. I'm actively trying to avoid such things now, as I dislike the idea of being banned.
@BuggleBear raises a good question, though. Why do I get into so many fights here?
Probably the biggest reason is that people have a tendency to make unverifiable claims, and then to pass those empty claims as some kind of great truth. And anything aside from treating their great truth with respect is, in effect, a type of heresy.
This strikes me as very dumb and childish.
"But why, HogboblinZwei, do you engage with these people? Why can't you just ignore what's going on?"
I can, and I sometimes do. However, I see these claims as writing prompts. They're fun opportunities for me to scribble some nonsense.
The problem is that I'm really good at writing, and I thoroughly enjoy it. I'm pretty adept at satire, and at comedic exaggeration that flips those unverified claims on their heads and exposes them as goofy brain droppings.
Most people don't take kindly to that. They take my criticizing their ideas as a personal attack. They are deeply wounded by my tone, which deals with their great truths without the requisite reverence—and that injunction to revere is imposed on everyone participating in the discussion. It holds the participants hostage, and draws a line in the sand that says "Do Not Cross".
I enjoy when my writings make others laugh. But, I have always enjoyed shock and revulsion more. The notion that critiquing a belief can make a human feel threatened is delightful to me. It's like a cold glass of water on a sweltering day.
Now, as far as trolling goes, I've got a hypothesis for that:
After making a hilarious, well-written post that devalues whatever great truth has been thrust on everyone, the original poster has a hissy fit. They throw insults my way, usually. And then I respond, often with a fair amount of snark, and in a way that is technically superior in every regard. Some on the forum might think that I am offended, and that my being offended has compelled me to attack or "troll". This is not the case.
You see, the game has changed. I now have more tools at my disposal to contend with this writing prompt. There are more ways for me to be clever, or creatively repugnant. The fun is magnified and extended.
Sometimes, it appears that "trolling" doesn't need to extend that far; one only needs to ask questions, or not accept falsehoods as a sign of "respect", or to not write in the equivalent of a baby voice in order to evoke an outraged response. To me, this is patently ridiculous.
But, again, I'm trying to not get into it with others on the forum.
This thread is a lovely one, and I appreciate how conducive it is to self reflection.
Addendum: I speak so highly of my writing ability because people have paid me for the things that I dream up and write. Do feel free to critique my writing through a private message, after providing your credentials as an editor, and listing the criteria I would need to meet to find a place in your reputable publication.
@HogboblinZwei If you sail far enough you will fall off the edge of the planet. There you will find the Garden of Eden where if you eat the snakeless apples your eyes will be open to the reality that diseases do not exist, vaccines are poisonous, and hundreds of millions of people conspire to steal elections. These are all incontrovertible facts.
Signed,
The Cosmic Button Pusher
Often, on various other internet forums, when I read posts by seemingly malicious beings that obviously have verbal sophistry, I am reminded of Ignatius from "Confederacy of Dunces".
A booksmart character, filled with vitriol for the world, convinced of his intellectual superiority and his power with the written word, but truly a sad and cringeworthy being.
Here is a synopsis of his character, for those who are interested:
" Dunces is a picaresque novel featuring the misadventures of protagonist Ignatius J. Reilly, a lazy, obese, misanthropic, self-styled scholar who lives at home with his mother
Ignatius J. Reilly is the son of Irene Reilly and Mr. Reilly. He is a 30-year-old self-styled philosopher and social commentator. Ignatius is well-educated, specializing in the medieval period during his university studies, an era which he believes was the high point of Western civilization. Ignatius is convinced that culture and society have been in decline ever since. Despite his academic success, Ignatius is extremely lazy and greedy; he still lives at home with his mother in New Orleans and refuses to get a job. Ignatius despises the trappings of capitalism and modern society and hates contemporary popular culture, yet he is obsessed with movies and television, which he loves to hate, and attends the cinema regularly. Ignatius is extremely judgmental of others, and he hates politics. However, he attempts to engage in progressive politics several times throughout the novel because he knows that this will annoy Myrna. Ignatius is extremely self-centered and assured of his intellectual prowess, convinced that he is in the process of writing a masterpiece though he only writes a page or so a month. Since he views himself as superior to modern society, Ignatius believes that society is jealous and afraid of him, and therefore seeks to punish him. Ignatius does, indeed, stand out in a crowd because of his enormous size and unusual style of dress—he insists on wearing shabby clothing and a fur-lined hunting cap even in the year-round hot climate of Louisiana. Eventually, Ignatius’s idiosyncrasies nearly cause his undoing, as Irene’s friend Santa convinces her to institutionalize Ignatius—a fate he narrowly escapes by running away with Myrna. Although he claims to hate humanity, Ignatius often comes across as a slightly sad and socially alienated character who is searching for genuine emotional and intellectual connection."
@MCcuddles2 Absolutely love “A Confederacy of Dunces”. So sad that Mr. Toole did not stick around and give us more.
@HogboblinZwei: I run into that problem pretty often myself. Why is it that when I question an idea or a claim, the person putting it forward takes it as a personal affront?
I used to think I just wasn't wording things well.
But no... as it turns out, for some folks criticism of an idea they have feels exactly the same as an attack on who they are as people!
No matter how gently I phrase it, if I'm not at least 90% in agreement, they're furious.
I admire your ability to have fun with it.
@FunCartel
It's a shame Mr. Toole could not live to see his success and give us more of his genius.
@DaringSprinter - people take it as a personal attack when their ideas are questioned because they don’t distinguish between themselves as a person and their ideas. They identify with their beliefs and when those beliefs are challenged they feel personally threatened. Giving up a cherished belief can almost feel like dying.
@Babichev: So I've been told—but I still find it difficult to grasp.
Maybe because I used to believe so deeply, so sincerely, things that were blatantly untrue, and was so very happy to be rid of the falsehoods that had taken up root in my head.
Who would want a lie to be part of who they were?
Wouldn't any sane person want to make their beliefs match reality, rather than trying it the other way around?
It confounds me.
The explanation is really very simple. Let me tell you a story.
One evening, years ago, before I retired, I was in in my office working late. I thought I was alone in the building, when suddenly, the company president walked in and started to tell me about a new process that he wanted to switch part of our production to. He said that it would speed things up and save some money. I said that it would be faster, but the cost of validating it would more than eat up any possible savings.
We argued for about 20 minutes, before he finally agreed with me. I said "Do you know, I think that the sole purpose to this exercise was the entertainment value." He started laughing, and said "Ya. I love it." Then he just got up and left.
Some people simply enjoy arguing, and this forum is a convenient place to find people to argue with.
@GreatHornedOwl a poignant observation, informed by decades of life experience.
@HogboblinZwei I agree, you are fabulously entertaining when you present your views and refutations. I always read them.
Aw shucks. Thank you, sir.
@GreatHornedOwl: So the anger and offense are fake? They're just pretending to be personally attacked so they can have the fun of screaming about how I'm a terrible person and they're being bullied?
...I actually find that easier to understand.
Cool.
See?! All this is why I love it here!!
[edited: removed the mushy bits...]
@HogboblinZwei ~
Could you please PM/link me to some of your writing (if available online ~ & adding: if you're comfortable sharing with me)?
Unless it's all of a higher cerebral caliber than what one with only a marginal grasp of things might understand/be able to follow...
I'm thrilled with all of the responses here, thank you to everyone that had added thoughts to this topic. It's definitely given me a lot to think about. I think I may even write this up as a sociological-based paper for personal use, just because it is insightful and I'd like to see what existing theory there is to back these ideas. (Naming no names in the paper, of course, and it won't be published anywhere- I just like to write essays sometimes so I don't feel like my brain is atrophying)
If anyone wants to read it when I'm done, let me know.
@BuggleBear: Ooh. 🖐🏻
@BuggleBear ~ I would 🤗
There is nothing wrong with spirited disagreement so long as it doesn't degrade into personal insults.
@UKGuy the problem is that it completely derails the thread and whatever group conversion was going on grinds to a halt
@DaringSprinter Maria Konnikova's book The Confidence Game delves very deeply into why people will embrace beliefs that aren't true and hold on to them despite obvious evidence to the contrary. (And on the flip side, there are beliefs that other may feel are untrue, but cannot be proven either way -- then you're getting into faith, and challenging someone's faith is a flashpoint for many).
@DaringSprinter - I wouldn't say that all of them are fake, but a significant percentage certainly are.
@GreatHornedOwl As I read that comment and the ones leading up to it, something occurred to me.
In some cases of fake outrage, I think the acting might be convincing enough to fool the person faking the outrage.
It seems like I have experienced moments where I've questioned my own fervor about things. Being in that position some people may recognize their error, but remain reluctant to back down, for fear of losing face.
I wonder if the action of doubling down in a losing debate is simply an application of the sunk-cost fallacy.
This can be analyzed from here to eternity, but escalation is usually fueled by adrenaline when frustration surrenders to emotion. Normally, if introspection is done, there really is nothing more to it than that because the crux of the argument is usually petty in hindsight.
As self-centered moderator checking in after a few days offline, I am very pleased with the discourse and comments here. Thanks for initiating this, @BuggleBear , and for all the participants here.
"People killin' people dyin' Children hurtin', I hear them cryin' Can you practice what you preachin'? Would you turn the other cheek again? Mama, mama, mama, tell us what the hell is goin' on Can't we all just get along? Father, father, father help us Send some guidance from above 'Cause people got me, got me questioning (Where's the love?) Yo, what's going on with the world, momma? (Where's the love?) Yo, people living like they ain't got no mommas (Where's the love?) I think they all distracted by the drama And attracted to the trauma, mamma (Where's the love?) I think they don't understand the concept Or the meaning of karma (Where's the love?)"
@MCcuddles2 Ok, those are fightin’ words!
I don't know who said this (no, it was not Abraham Lincoln) but it's my rule which decides my interactions on this and all forums:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
@CuddlesByDeep Wouldn’t that be the voters advice to any president?
Well, our former president certainly didn't follow it, and proved this quote beyond any reasonable doubt.
@CuddlesByDeep: Huh. My dad used to say that. I guess it wasn't original to him after all!
When I was a kid, I thought it was funny. As an adult, I wonder: isn't removing all doubt better for you? We all know what the first step in fixing a problem is....
Edit: Though, admittedly, that didn't work too well in the case of our former president. Perhaps blatant idiocy isn't as obvious as one might think.