I’ve been trying to understand this better myself.
It seems that even when people are talking about ideas, it often turns into “sides” and hostility.
Why do you think conflict feels so compelling to some people — even when it doesn’t really move the conversation forward?
Well, tribalism I guess.
But I think it’s a bit more complicated than that, especially nowadays. I think the internet has changed everything, and not always for the better. It’s thrown us all into a giant pot, billions of minds that can now communicate instantaneously. People are scrabbling to form groups, and take sides, just to find an identity online.
Those groups and ideologies are highly polarised, you can take one side or the other, and if you identify with one of them, then you are completely opposed to everything the opposing group stands for.
But it’s also the medium of discussion, you don’t have to look someone in the eye or read their body language. There is no threat of physical violence or retaliation. People can say what they like, even though they might be much less inclined to do so in person.
It’s a kind of dishonesty, and gives people a way to express what they believe without facing up to what they might encounter if they did so in a real social situation.
Of course, not all people fall into this definition, but unfortunately many do.
Yeah, the online vs in-person difference is huge. People definitely act differently when there’s a bit of anonymity protecting them.
Do you think the hostility is mostly about anonymity, or more about people latching onto a side and feeling like they’re defending their tribe? Feels like a mix of both, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I think it’s even deeper than that.
Everyone feels threatened, and confused. Latching onto a side provides some sort of sanity and safety, at least. The events affecting everyone right now seem completely senseless, nihilistic, and completely out of control for most people.
Adhering to an certain ideology makes many things make sense again. If we are confronted by others who disturb what comfort we have found in shared reason, then we sometimes react in a hostile manner, perhaps by trying to negate their own standpoint, or even by insulting and threatening them.
One side throws their own beliefs at the disputers, and they throw theirs back. But no one is really listening, or trying to understand. They are trying to win, to find that ultimate talking point which will shut up the opposition for good. But if there is such a point, then it would have been discovered long ago. Instead, people regurgitate points which were effective in the past, ones that they feel strengthen their argument, but rarely think of their own, which would be a much more effective strategy overall, and would require an understanding of why they believe what they do.
Also, people simply become emotionally charged, and then it’s not really the brain doing the thinking anymore..
Thanks for providing the link in your profile - https://soulsequel.com/.
Looks like a great site, and very relevant to my interests.
Appreciate that — I’ve been interested in spaces that prioritize thoughtful conversation.
You can certainly find that here, but it can be a bit of a minefield. Also, some of the philosophical conversation is extremely deep and involved, and there’s a lot of assumption regarding previous knowledge, which I often don’t have.
But it’s a very good place to learn, just takes a bit of effort, sometimes a lot.
fair enough. I’ll tread carefully and see what I find.
It’s mainly Low-IQ.
The lower IQ and (philosophical training, discipline) a person has, the more he takes things personally. He cannot ‘disassociate’ from an idea, in the abstract. He cannot be ‘Objective’. Instead, every argument is a personal ‘assault’. “Words are Violence” as the American Leftists say. To them, there are no ‘ideas’–there is only Reality. There is no Fiction. If you say or write something, then it’s automatically true and literal. There is only one way to interpret everything, literally (a form of autism).
I’m sorry, how do you move a conversation forward rather than just circling/orbiting the drain on a very monotonous repeat unless there’s some sort of antagonism or challenge?
One can disagree very strongly without it turning hostile, but if what you are standing for, if applied in reality, would result in harm to what they hold truly valuable, expect hostility rather than being surprised by it.
The question to ask when you are seeing hostility is “What is being threatened that they hold valuable?” Ask it very obviously and make them defend their answer.
Unless of course you don’t care who you hurt. In which case maybe you should be locked up?
Nobody is questioning disagreement, or antagonism or challenge. The question was about hostility and conflict, and why people are prone to take “sides”.
I’ve seen people argue about such (unprovable) things as “determinism” on here ad nauseam, and get so riled up about it that they resort to insults and obviously get quite angry. It flies back and forth without anyone getting anywhere. What was achieved? That they now really don’t like each other very much?
The question to ask when seeing hostility is “What the f**k are you getting so upset about?” or more eloquently “Are you so insecure in your convictions that a simple argument has your blood boiling?”
For me that was more the question the topic presented.
And anyway, this was the most ironically self-defeating question I’ve seen for a while. How is constant antagonism going to move an argument forward? I think you’ll find that it’s a certain degree of capitulation that does that. Without any level of agreement or compromise whatsoever, the conversation stays locked in stasis, ends in disenfranchisement, and can stay that way until “next time” when the whole cycle repeats itself all over again. What a way to move “forward”.
oh. So you’re reading the Glass Bead Game, as well? AND obtaining a masters in playing stupid? Noice.
I don’t know what the “Glass Bead Game” is, and I would like you to clarify why I am “playing stupid”. Perhaps by directly disputing one of my points? Or would you prefer to continue to hide behind intellectual snobbery and deliberate obfuscation?
Fine… I’ll be the stronger player.
When there is an impasse, something must be lost in order to move forward and merge into growing together.
That is how all growth goes down. Or up rather. Actually both. Relative to the absolute fractal, of course.
Roots & fruits.
Whatever your interpretation of strength is, is the subject for another debate.
I’ll just leave this here:
Can I take it you’re now agreeing with that?
?
I will never capitulate to the powers that be.
To the absolute fractal, on the other hand, all capitulate eventually.
I think it should be the “infinite fractal” instead, then I agree wholeheartedly.
Whole as well. Don’t get it twisted.