2 May, 2009
There's a phenomenon of "intellectual" discourse, particularly online, that will be instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever stated an opinion in the open ether. It's as simple as this: When you state your opinion, there will be those who disagree. Many of these people, however, cannot simply say, "I disagree, and here is why." They cannot state their own positions. They cannot offer a reasonable, rational refutation of the opinion with which they disagree. No, instead, when confronted by an opinion they dislike, such people must express their deep and abiding conviction in the belief that you are a bad person.
Why, it can't only be that they disagree with you. It can't even be that you're wrong. No, you're not just wrong; you're bad. You're worse than a heretic; your opinion is so wrong as to be unthinkable, your position so unacceptable as to be untenable, your devotion to the unthinkable so total as to be unbearable. Such people don't merely heap scorn and derision on you because they disagree; certainly any of us has felt the desire to ridicule the ridiculous while also explaining why someone is misguided, wrongheaded, or otherwise incorrect. No, such people are not satisfied unless they oppose you so totally as to become self-parody. The only weapons they do not employ are any and all of those associated with logic, reason, and truth.
In most cases these are conversations you won't have in person. This is because such people either wouldn't have the courage to express their ill-conceived opinions directly, with their real identities behind them, or it's because you simply wouldn't waste your time talking to such people in real-life venues. A few of these cowards in turn delude themselves into thinking that those with whom they argue wouldn't dare say to their faces what is said to them through bulletin boards and discussion sites. This is sad to see, because in most cases the weak-minded would be shocked and crushed to learn just how many unpleasant things their more rational betters would say to their faces, if only the opportunity arose. I know I don't say anything to anyone online that I wouldn't also say if they were standing in front of me. Rarely am I offered this opportunity.
On those invaluable occasions when I can tell the weak-minded, to their faces, why they are wrong, it's generally a very awkward exchange, which culminates in my "opponent" fleeing. This is because it's not so easy to insult someone to his face when he has behind him both the clarity of his convictions and the willingness to, well, say rude things to you. I don't care who I piss off; I've never been good with authority and I don't censor my opinions. If you say something stupid, I don't care if I hurt your feelings.
I don't mind making someone feel awkward by saying, "Well, no, actually, that's completely incorrect, and here's why." Usually one is met with silence by this declaration; on one occasion, I was told, "It doesn't matter, Phil. You won't change my mind." One does not normally get so frank an admission that one's facts will not alter another's ardently held opinions. It's refreshing when it happens.
The weak-minded take comfort, and draw strength, from the anonymity that the Internet affords, certainly. A few actually do allow their real identities to be revealed, but in so doing these cowards still have distance on their sides. Most people who argue online are in different states or different countries; they know the chances are slim that they'll ever be forced to confront someone, directly, whom they've insulted online. I call them cowards because their characters are, fundamentally, venal and gutless. They engage in their intellectually bankrupt behavior, pouring scorn and derision on those with whom they disagree, because they are unable to engage in discussions of ideas. They feel safe doing so because they know they will never be called on to account for their actions in person, nor will their real reputations ever truly be called into question.
The personality and the character behind such a coward is equal parts insecurity and projection. These are people who lack confidence in their ideas, or who understand on some level that their personal philosophies are logically inconsistent and rationally unsupportable. This is why they become so angry when confronted by opinions with which they disagree; they are being denied affirmation of their beliefs, and actively so. To the weak his denial, because of their insecurities, must be seen, necessarily, as more than the lack of validation. It is an active affront, a direct insult, because it is an attack on their ill-conceived pictures of themselves.
From this position of mental and emotional anguish and weakness, barely suppressed, the coward projects his weakness onto others, frequently accusing them of the very things of which he is himself guilty. These are the people who characterize as "trolling" any opinion with which they disagree. These are the people who despise and fear any human beings who have the contemptible gall, as the cowards see it, to fail to be persuaded by the wisdom of the cowards' beliefs. Shocked, irritated, and insulted that any would dare oppose their conflicted ideologies, these weak-minded people lash out in every conceivable and personal fashion, condemning and insulting their opponents in the most childish ways possible. If they can throw their virtual stones from within the comfort and false strength of a like-minded mob of cowards, so much the better; these are people who draw strength from the company of other weak-willed and emotionally fragile psyches.
This is why the majority of the people with whom you argue online -- if they cannot deal in ideas and must instead engage in elaborate histrionics designed to demonstrate, for an audience, that you are a bad person -- are cowards. This is why they are weak. This weakness, in turn, is why they are emboldened by the anonymity and the distance afforced them by the Internet. The medium is all the aegis -- and all the encouragement -- their pitifully small minds require. It puffs them up and enables them, providing both means and meaning for their intellectually bankrupt activities.
Understanding this weakness helps the man or woman of reason keep such people in perspective, even when they gather in large groups to point and jeer en masse. In dismissing the weak, you will invariably enrage them and provoke them further, for you are denying them the validation and affirmation they so desperately crave. This is why they will always care what you think, and this is why they will take the time to rail against it in their ineffectual, derisive fashion.
This is why you should rarely care what they think.
You do not, however, need me to tell you that. >>