No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a “nerd” get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.
If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.
Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.
And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.
Is your argument that you don’t think anyone else reads what people post on social media, and that it has no effect if they do? Respectfully are you insane?
Right, see how this didnt change your opinion and the magical third person inspired by our conversation would come away with what from this?
Talking to people has impact. Imagining you are talking to imaginary people when you talk to someone else, is not that. But sure. I am probably insane. It doesnt seem like there is a single sane person on the planet looking at our environment. And me treating each interaction as its own is somehow so much worse than having an imaginary friend to comfort your ego.
To busy trying to find how to defend your position you won’t even look at it critically.
You’re proving my point for me: you’re boxing with your own ghosts rather than engaging what I actually said.
You try to use hyperbolic exaggeration to pin a list of positions I have never claimed to hold. This is almost certainly from past arguments.
With this exchange as an example, If I was an onlooker I would see someone who told me that there is a purpose in respectful debate and working to add clarity and consciousness instead of trying to win for onlookers and then another who has had no point engaged it and instead lashed out, that would both effectively communicate the point and teach me how to engage with someone who is talking past me.
I am responding to what you say you just can’t see from outside your own perspective.
You fail to see you doing the same things and assume people will take your side. Its ego. You have a hope of how you are perceived, but its without a backing. Its fine that you have faith but recognize it as such rather than stamping it as truth.
You are exactly like every other person and your impact is what you make it, not what you wish it was. This conversation was the same as arguing against the religious and arguing their prayers are not being listened to. I know I can not argue you out of your position as their is no logical way you argued yourself into this one where you are seen as the hero of logical and empathetic commenting.
Its just silly and it lacks the same sanity you claim me to be missing. I’m outie. Good luck with your prayers.
P.S. the point was neither of us could know what someone reading this would think since we aren’t them. And they dont even exist. I am talking to you for you. Not for anyone else later. I respond because I want to respond, not for hypothetical higher ground.
You’re telling on yourself in real time you’re accusing me of not seeing outside my position while demonstrating exactly that.
You’re diagnosing my motives by something you literally cannot know because you have not engaged with a single word on the screen.
You’re making unfalsifiable claims for the sake of, what I can only assume at this point is to insensing me based off of the amount of times you’ve doubled down and never actually responded to the points I’ve made
You’re projecting your own behavior on me without evidence.
You’re claiming that third party is in an online discussion don’t exist while writing a public comment. It may be true that no one’s reading this because we’re so far down the rabbit hole it’s very easy to disprove in general, just think about the last time you read a conversation you didn’t comment in.
“I respond because I want to respond, not hypothetical higher ground.” That’s exactly my point I never said I had any moral higher ground just that there are holes in the argument worth exploring, I’m not trying to win or prove you wrong build a scaffold for respectful online debate. This is an example of you anchoring your own trauma to me.
At this point I would like to respectfully disengage I will still read what you say if you have something to say but I won’t take it any further because at this point it’s cyclical.
I think you may want to reread what I wrote because this is barely related. Feels more like something happened and you’re just looking for a vent.
No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a “nerd” get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.
If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.
I don’t think it’s delusional to want to teach people things. When you respectfully deconstruct someone’s half truths it can help people understand.
This is not to say that you should take everything seriously or that every person is worth engaging with of course you still have to be selective.
Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.
And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.
Is your argument that you don’t think anyone else reads what people post on social media, and that it has no effect if they do? Respectfully are you insane?
Right, see how this didnt change your opinion and the magical third person inspired by our conversation would come away with what from this?
Talking to people has impact. Imagining you are talking to imaginary people when you talk to someone else, is not that. But sure. I am probably insane. It doesnt seem like there is a single sane person on the planet looking at our environment. And me treating each interaction as its own is somehow so much worse than having an imaginary friend to comfort your ego.
To busy trying to find how to defend your position you won’t even look at it critically.
You’re proving my point for me: you’re boxing with your own ghosts rather than engaging what I actually said.
You try to use hyperbolic exaggeration to pin a list of positions I have never claimed to hold. This is almost certainly from past arguments.
With this exchange as an example, If I was an onlooker I would see someone who told me that there is a purpose in respectful debate and working to add clarity and consciousness instead of trying to win for onlookers and then another who has had no point engaged it and instead lashed out, that would both effectively communicate the point and teach me how to engage with someone who is talking past me.
I am responding to what you say you just can’t see from outside your own perspective.
You fail to see you doing the same things and assume people will take your side. Its ego. You have a hope of how you are perceived, but its without a backing. Its fine that you have faith but recognize it as such rather than stamping it as truth.
You are exactly like every other person and your impact is what you make it, not what you wish it was. This conversation was the same as arguing against the religious and arguing their prayers are not being listened to. I know I can not argue you out of your position as their is no logical way you argued yourself into this one where you are seen as the hero of logical and empathetic commenting.
Its just silly and it lacks the same sanity you claim me to be missing. I’m outie. Good luck with your prayers.
P.S. the point was neither of us could know what someone reading this would think since we aren’t them. And they dont even exist. I am talking to you for you. Not for anyone else later. I respond because I want to respond, not for hypothetical higher ground.
You’re telling on yourself in real time you’re accusing me of not seeing outside my position while demonstrating exactly that.
You’re diagnosing my motives by something you literally cannot know because you have not engaged with a single word on the screen.
You’re making unfalsifiable claims for the sake of, what I can only assume at this point is to insensing me based off of the amount of times you’ve doubled down and never actually responded to the points I’ve made
You’re projecting your own behavior on me without evidence.
You’re claiming that third party is in an online discussion don’t exist while writing a public comment. It may be true that no one’s reading this because we’re so far down the rabbit hole it’s very easy to disprove in general, just think about the last time you read a conversation you didn’t comment in.
“I respond because I want to respond, not hypothetical higher ground.” That’s exactly my point I never said I had any moral higher ground just that there are holes in the argument worth exploring, I’m not trying to win or prove you wrong build a scaffold for respectful online debate. This is an example of you anchoring your own trauma to me.
At this point I would like to respectfully disengage I will still read what you say if you have something to say but I won’t take it any further because at this point it’s cyclical.