As someone who definitely likes alcohol a little too much, the best way I can describe it is that once you start drinking, you develop a keen awareness that if you stop, you'll feel crappy. When the buzz wears off you'll be left feeling lethargic with a headache. But if you just have another one, you can keep the buzz going. And of course that progresses until the buzz turns into a blackout.
As far as wanting to argue with people on the Internet, I was that way when I was young, like in my early twenties. I remember being unreasonably mad at people on the Internet and looking back, I don't know why. Maybe it is just an age thing. As I've gotten older, I still sit here and post things, but I just can't bring myself to care when someone is wrong. These days when I see a comment or post that is just hopelessly stupid, more often than not I ignore it and don't even bother to respond.
No doubt. It’s easier than ever for anyone saying unreasonable things to be widely heard. I know because I do it more than I’d like.
When I say something stupid loudly, I can imagine it’s one of the most awful sounds a smart person ever hears. They have my genuine sympathy. When anyone hears awful sounds it usually bothers them to the point they can’t help trying to find out where it’s coming from and put an end to it. I once tore my own alarm system out of the wall to make it shut the fuck up.
Of course the ones saying stupid things see this exactly the same as you but just disagree on who’s being stupid. It’s really hard to know sometimes which side you’re on. Hopefully if you keep refining and clarifying your arguments in a way that invites average people to accept them, most will buy in. If they never do, I guess you can either 1) take comfort in your rare understanding or 2) consider you’re somehow in error.
It's a public tournament. You're on show. You have an audience. You're proving your mettle.
(Note "proving" is word-play - it can be taken in both the modern sense and the anachronistic meaning of "prove", ie "improve", as in "the exception that proves the rule".)
In support of your quip about persuasion occurring “at least once in history,” the late, great, George Salmon relates an amusing confirmation that can give us all hope:
“Dionysius of Alexandria is a man whom we know mainly by some extracts from his writings preserved by Eusebius; and there is none of the early Fathers who impresses me more favourably as a man of earnest piety, good sense, moderation, and Christian charity. On the occasion to which I refer he worked what I account one of the greatest and most authentic miracles of ecclesiastical history. His diocese being much troubled with disputes on the Millennarian controversy, he assembled those whom perhaps another bishop would have denounced as heretics; and he held a three days’ public discussion with them: the result being what I have never heard of as the result of any other public discussion—that he talked his opponents round, and brought all to complete agreement with himself.”
The amount of time I've spent typing out long comments on various forums, explaining how wrong someone is--half hating myself for wasting so much of my time, half enjoying picking apart this confused person's reply--is not something I like to think about too much. It's truly a Sisyphean task of thinking you'll be able to make them see how ignorant they're being, if you just write this one reply, and them still just not being able to comprehend; like trying to scoop water with a tennis racket. I definitely ressonate with this!
I actually wonder if there’s a proclivity towards that sort of mindset that is spurred on by being active during the new atheist era/were around in those sorts of communities. Just speaking personally I feel a bit of that vice especially towards arguments regarding philosophy of religion and I feel like that was partly inculcated due to constant exposure to people being smugly wrong about things for so long, combined with the fact that the topic attracts combative personalities and inspired arguments about the topic.
normally when people get angry like this it's because the topic strikes a nerve, it's personal somehow (consciously or not). if you can get this angry about anthropics, it shows you really must be a true lover of wisdom.
People might find this suggestion icky (id wager for purely aesthetic reasons), but you could train an LLM on your writing style and papers (e.g Claude Projects) and outsource explaining why dumb commenters are wrong to it. You get all the (questionable) benefit at none / a fraction of the cost. I did this with some of my responses to a confused commenter on your post about offsetting meat consumption
Indeed, and it might also apply to other circumstances beyound the Interwebs. Its definitly a common vice to most, including myself. Only recently have I started to introspect on it and make an effort to avoid it, perhaps it goes away with age, like pimples.
One of the main reasons I haven’t started a substack. I have a very similar vice. I think I’d get consumed responding, in rage, to objectively confused comments that are insulting/overconfident. Although, for me, it comes not out of an urge to destroy, but an urge to defend my image as “not stupid” or some such thing.
Side-note: there’s also a fine line between poking fun at positions one finds implausible (as you do with, e.g., Thomists) and just being overconfident in thinking someone else is *stupid*.
Totally get that urge to destroy. I can say though that after a while of getting loads of stupid and offensive comments, personally I've found, it just washes over you and you ignore them and only engage the good faith people.
There is a Wikipedia page that reminds editors that "you have a right to remain silent." I often think of it to myself, when I get into the third level of comments.
As someone who definitely likes alcohol a little too much, the best way I can describe it is that once you start drinking, you develop a keen awareness that if you stop, you'll feel crappy. When the buzz wears off you'll be left feeling lethargic with a headache. But if you just have another one, you can keep the buzz going. And of course that progresses until the buzz turns into a blackout.
As far as wanting to argue with people on the Internet, I was that way when I was young, like in my early twenties. I remember being unreasonably mad at people on the Internet and looking back, I don't know why. Maybe it is just an age thing. As I've gotten older, I still sit here and post things, but I just can't bring myself to care when someone is wrong. These days when I see a comment or post that is just hopelessly stupid, more often than not I ignore it and don't even bother to respond.
No doubt. It’s easier than ever for anyone saying unreasonable things to be widely heard. I know because I do it more than I’d like.
When I say something stupid loudly, I can imagine it’s one of the most awful sounds a smart person ever hears. They have my genuine sympathy. When anyone hears awful sounds it usually bothers them to the point they can’t help trying to find out where it’s coming from and put an end to it. I once tore my own alarm system out of the wall to make it shut the fuck up.
Of course the ones saying stupid things see this exactly the same as you but just disagree on who’s being stupid. It’s really hard to know sometimes which side you’re on. Hopefully if you keep refining and clarifying your arguments in a way that invites average people to accept them, most will buy in. If they never do, I guess you can either 1) take comfort in your rare understanding or 2) consider you’re somehow in error.
It's a public tournament. You're on show. You have an audience. You're proving your mettle.
(Note "proving" is word-play - it can be taken in both the modern sense and the anachronistic meaning of "prove", ie "improve", as in "the exception that proves the rule".)
In support of your quip about persuasion occurring “at least once in history,” the late, great, George Salmon relates an amusing confirmation that can give us all hope:
“Dionysius of Alexandria is a man whom we know mainly by some extracts from his writings preserved by Eusebius; and there is none of the early Fathers who impresses me more favourably as a man of earnest piety, good sense, moderation, and Christian charity. On the occasion to which I refer he worked what I account one of the greatest and most authentic miracles of ecclesiastical history. His diocese being much troubled with disputes on the Millennarian controversy, he assembled those whom perhaps another bishop would have denounced as heretics; and he held a three days’ public discussion with them: the result being what I have never heard of as the result of any other public discussion—that he talked his opponents round, and brought all to complete agreement with himself.”
The amount of time I've spent typing out long comments on various forums, explaining how wrong someone is--half hating myself for wasting so much of my time, half enjoying picking apart this confused person's reply--is not something I like to think about too much. It's truly a Sisyphean task of thinking you'll be able to make them see how ignorant they're being, if you just write this one reply, and them still just not being able to comprehend; like trying to scoop water with a tennis racket. I definitely ressonate with this!
I actually wonder if there’s a proclivity towards that sort of mindset that is spurred on by being active during the new atheist era/were around in those sorts of communities. Just speaking personally I feel a bit of that vice especially towards arguments regarding philosophy of religion and I feel like that was partly inculcated due to constant exposure to people being smugly wrong about things for so long, combined with the fact that the topic attracts combative personalities and inspired arguments about the topic.
normally when people get angry like this it's because the topic strikes a nerve, it's personal somehow (consciously or not). if you can get this angry about anthropics, it shows you really must be a true lover of wisdom.
People might find this suggestion icky (id wager for purely aesthetic reasons), but you could train an LLM on your writing style and papers (e.g Claude Projects) and outsource explaining why dumb commenters are wrong to it. You get all the (questionable) benefit at none / a fraction of the cost. I did this with some of my responses to a confused commenter on your post about offsetting meat consumption
Indeed, and it might also apply to other circumstances beyound the Interwebs. Its definitly a common vice to most, including myself. Only recently have I started to introspect on it and make an effort to avoid it, perhaps it goes away with age, like pimples.
Also nice touch with Ezekiel at the end.
Is this Penance for going on The Atheist Experience?
One of the main reasons I haven’t started a substack. I have a very similar vice. I think I’d get consumed responding, in rage, to objectively confused comments that are insulting/overconfident. Although, for me, it comes not out of an urge to destroy, but an urge to defend my image as “not stupid” or some such thing.
Side-note: there’s also a fine line between poking fun at positions one finds implausible (as you do with, e.g., Thomists) and just being overconfident in thinking someone else is *stupid*.
Totally get that urge to destroy. I can say though that after a while of getting loads of stupid and offensive comments, personally I've found, it just washes over you and you ignore them and only engage the good faith people.
There is a Wikipedia page that reminds editors that "you have a right to remain silent." I often think of it to myself, when I get into the third level of comments.