The comment section of my blog is readable only because of aggressive moderation. If you check out an unmoderated forum, you find a mess. You can guess how my comment section would look like if you check out my posts copied to EN24. Same post, no moderation. Take for example this one. 64 comments at the moment. Maximum 2 or 3 could be considered worthy. The rest are not even attempting to be worthy. They are insults, memes, random one liners and such.
To have an argument, someone has to be wrong. The very purpose of arguments is to help wrong people stop being wrong. It's OK to be wrong in an argument. But they are not wrong, their comments do not offer any arguments or points. Just insults, memes, offtopic and such. I've seen the same in TEST forum, where I found very few arguments replying to my posts. I got instead of whole pages of "shut the fuck up" and pictures of Korean pop bands (it's some TEST meme).
The simple explanation is the writers of these are retards who honestly think that a picture of a Korean girl disproves an argument. However that level of idiocy would probably render someone unable to function in life and need him to be locked up in a mental hospital before he jumps out of the window as he can fly. OK, some of the comments, typically the offtopic and the meme-spammer can be simple attention seeker, the "look mum, I'm on the Internet" kind. Some comments can come from drank or high ones.
But what about the insulters, the "do you even" and "lolwut" spammers? They aren't even cute like the Korean pop singers. Let's assume that they are capable of understanding that their post will not convince anyone about their opinion. In this case what do they want? I mean the participants of an argument want to prove that their opinion is right. But these commenters aren't even trying.
The solution is that the above, obvious-looking claim "in an argument people want to prove their opinion right" isn't true. It's only true for a small group of people, the rational thinkers (or simply: thinkers). They believe that there is a rational truth and they want to have it. They want to be right. The socials on the other hand can't care less about the objective truth. They don't want to be right. They want to feel good.
When they are not trying to feel good by being drunk, high or having sex (usually alone), they are trying to feel good by claiming some statement which will make others like or respect them. Socials like to be loved and respected, even if that provides them zero rewards. The typical example is the woman who wears make-up in the shop, enjoying that bypassing shoppers consider her beautiful, despite none of them gives her anything for being beautiful.
The rational thinker would say: "I think your opinion is wrong and I try to correct it". The social says "Your opinion makes me feel bad. I make you feel bad in return". Their bizarre comments are designed in a way that other social would indeed feel bad because of them and stop posting opinions that hurt the commenters. My "fans" in the TEST forum became a spectacle on their own, people - without actually agreeing with me - expressed amusement over their desperate and futile attempts to make me stop commenting. The point is to understand that these people are not ignorant who need teaching, but people who actively reject reason for feelings.
This explains how could people believe in communism, fascism and other mad ideologies. The fun fact is that these never had any - even wrong - scientific basis. There weren't a single argument to prove that some people are sub-humans and some are übermench, nor a system that measured human value. Just think about it, the nazis who lived and died (literally) according to some twisted Darwinism and breeding had absolutely no attempt to measure the "arian-ness" of an individual. The greatness of Germans and the worthlessness of Jews was simply declared. Similarly there wasn't even an attempt to prove that self-employed small-businessmen and farmers are exploiters. They didn't even have employees to exploit, yet they were declared as exploiters in communism. The people who believed in these weren't misinformed or ignorant. They had no rational reason to believe these, yet millions did, simply because it made them feel good (yay, I'm an übermench/my poverty is not my fault).
This also tells us how can their opinion changed. Not by arguments, they ignore that. People stopped being fascists and communists because starving, poverty and being defeated, bombed, invaded are not fun. World War II and the Cold War didn't disprove these ideologies in the eyes of their former believers, simply connected them to bad feelings, so they were no longer were wanted.
The above shows why sugar-coating and being polite and sensitive are wrong advices. The only way to make a social change his mind about an idea is exactly what he does to us: to insult him. No one ever convinced a social by arguments since he can't care less. The only way to make him stop believing something is making feel bad about it.
PS: I can't process comments until today evening.
To have an argument, someone has to be wrong. The very purpose of arguments is to help wrong people stop being wrong. It's OK to be wrong in an argument. But they are not wrong, their comments do not offer any arguments or points. Just insults, memes, offtopic and such. I've seen the same in TEST forum, where I found very few arguments replying to my posts. I got instead of whole pages of "shut the fuck up" and pictures of Korean pop bands (it's some TEST meme).
The simple explanation is the writers of these are retards who honestly think that a picture of a Korean girl disproves an argument. However that level of idiocy would probably render someone unable to function in life and need him to be locked up in a mental hospital before he jumps out of the window as he can fly. OK, some of the comments, typically the offtopic and the meme-spammer can be simple attention seeker, the "look mum, I'm on the Internet" kind. Some comments can come from drank or high ones.
But what about the insulters, the "do you even" and "lolwut" spammers? They aren't even cute like the Korean pop singers. Let's assume that they are capable of understanding that their post will not convince anyone about their opinion. In this case what do they want? I mean the participants of an argument want to prove that their opinion is right. But these commenters aren't even trying.
The solution is that the above, obvious-looking claim "in an argument people want to prove their opinion right" isn't true. It's only true for a small group of people, the rational thinkers (or simply: thinkers). They believe that there is a rational truth and they want to have it. They want to be right. The socials on the other hand can't care less about the objective truth. They don't want to be right. They want to feel good.
When they are not trying to feel good by being drunk, high or having sex (usually alone), they are trying to feel good by claiming some statement which will make others like or respect them. Socials like to be loved and respected, even if that provides them zero rewards. The typical example is the woman who wears make-up in the shop, enjoying that bypassing shoppers consider her beautiful, despite none of them gives her anything for being beautiful.
The rational thinker would say: "I think your opinion is wrong and I try to correct it". The social says "Your opinion makes me feel bad. I make you feel bad in return". Their bizarre comments are designed in a way that other social would indeed feel bad because of them and stop posting opinions that hurt the commenters. My "fans" in the TEST forum became a spectacle on their own, people - without actually agreeing with me - expressed amusement over their desperate and futile attempts to make me stop commenting. The point is to understand that these people are not ignorant who need teaching, but people who actively reject reason for feelings.
This explains how could people believe in communism, fascism and other mad ideologies. The fun fact is that these never had any - even wrong - scientific basis. There weren't a single argument to prove that some people are sub-humans and some are übermench, nor a system that measured human value. Just think about it, the nazis who lived and died (literally) according to some twisted Darwinism and breeding had absolutely no attempt to measure the "arian-ness" of an individual. The greatness of Germans and the worthlessness of Jews was simply declared. Similarly there wasn't even an attempt to prove that self-employed small-businessmen and farmers are exploiters. They didn't even have employees to exploit, yet they were declared as exploiters in communism. The people who believed in these weren't misinformed or ignorant. They had no rational reason to believe these, yet millions did, simply because it made them feel good (yay, I'm an übermench/my poverty is not my fault).
This also tells us how can their opinion changed. Not by arguments, they ignore that. People stopped being fascists and communists because starving, poverty and being defeated, bombed, invaded are not fun. World War II and the Cold War didn't disprove these ideologies in the eyes of their former believers, simply connected them to bad feelings, so they were no longer were wanted.
The above shows why sugar-coating and being polite and sensitive are wrong advices. The only way to make a social change his mind about an idea is exactly what he does to us: to insult him. No one ever convinced a social by arguments since he can't care less. The only way to make him stop believing something is making feel bad about it.
PS: I can't process comments until today evening.
0 comments:
Post a Comment