Weakness, Distance, Anonymity, and the Internet
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.
>>