So, something to discuss. This is trial run of a concept, so bear with me.

I can think something and believe something, but not act upon it.

That is to say, I can think of something, let's say something prejudicial, but not act upon it. I can separate those 2 things and whilst I may truly believe it, I know the law, I know it's another human being and I can respect that.

Similar to this, I can also distance myself from an argument that I'm making. That is to say, I can truly believe it and agree with it (or not), and I do not feel any emotional state, irrespective of my investment in the argument.

So, I can think of things without feeling the need to act upon it, and I can say things but also detach myself and argue whilst I'm "distanced" from it (good for playing devil's advocate).

On the internet, these traits are rare, though they serve you well.

It's really awkward to say this, as I know it'll appear arrogant (because that's the internet), but I believe it's a certain measure of self-control and self-discipline, and again there's no easy way to say this, but why are they so rare?

I really appreciate professionalism in any argument or interaction online, and it's occasionally disheartening to see that people cannot distance themselves enough to stay level-headed and calm.

It's just something that makes me concerned for the general state of humanity. I'm genuinely curious about this though.

You know, why is there so much pointless hatred in the world?

Note : Not the best opening post imo. I just hope it raises some food for thought. A dangerous and unorthodox concept too, the potential for inflammatory comments is notable.

Cool topic! I like these self-reflection thoughts. I hope I understood your point, correctly

I find I can separate myself from most sides of a debate, usually. There are a few topics I am emotional about and it is hard for me to stop and listen

One thing I've noticed is that I can "talk a mean game" yet fail to act upon it. Many things can piss me off and get under my skin, but when the confrontation arises, I usually just shut up, thinking, "It's just not worth it." Also, when I use my TWO ears to listen, I often find I understand better instead of using my ONE mouth to shout down the opposition, though I do fail at this every now and again

I often wonder when I think about this, if this was helped by my time on my high school's debate team. In debate, you are assigned a topic side and defend it as best as you can, even if you disagree with the viewpoint. This tends to open up one's mind.

As far as the rarity of this, society seems to deteriorate with every new tech advancement. We can communicate instantly with people on the other side of the globe. Yet we never meet them, in real life. Body language, vocal inflections, and simple tone of voice tells us so much more than words alone. Gone is that "terrible etiquette thing" and manners all but vanish with each new generation (because it's "old fashioned", you know...). The internet has helped this attitude along by leaps and bounds as people sit at their desk and type on their computer, totally ignoring (or forgetting) that human beings are on the other side of that monitor.

Did that your touch on your point being made? I was kind of all over the place

edited for typos...

i blame advertising.

seriously.

where, as a non-native english speaker, it's hard for me to tell how bad that is in english, but it sure is in german:

decades of advertising blah have turned the sharp sword language was into a filthy randomness sponge.

similar terms are being used as synonyms, replaced by words that at best mean something close to the original one used just because they sound more flashy, and all the countless other ways of language abuse we're getting spawned at us all day long.

to that, you'll hardly ever hear anything that actually means what it says, at best it's euphemisms, more often downright lies.

so now, after decades of all that [censored], even folk still capable of precise and straight forward language have a hard time getting through with it, as hardly anybody of their audience is able to parse that accordingly anymore, and, even worse, folk who actually speak (formal as well as contentual) truth hardly have a chance to get that across because everybody _expects_ an euphemism, a lie or some other type of pitfall or tripwire.

with language degraded to randomness and meaninglessness though, communication becomes impossible, the more complex or subtle the matter is (so it'd REQUIRE precise and sensible language), the faster corrupt language will fail - and the harder it gets at the same time to calm an escalation, because for that, again, you got nothing but just the language that won't work anymore. and when language fails, the next best option to solve a conflict is smash a stick on somebody's head or whatever's available.

which is the short version. got a long one that makes conclusions look a bit less odd, too if needed

so, if you want to save the world, humankind and the princess - mind your language, and spread the _correct_ word.

i mean it.

I blame the creation of the term micro aggression and it's use in the mainstream and college/university campuses for the exponential growth of this trait.


If you know what the term micro aggression is, it's basically if you say something that isn't supposed to be offensive but somebody finds it offensive. The most notable micro aggression is the sentence "where are you from?", apparently implying they aren't from the country or locale or something ridiculous, rather than just a question.


On post secondary campuses, they are teaching that when someone says a micro aggression, that it's just as bad as a macro aggression (like punching somebody), and so it's reasonable to respond to micro aggressions with macro aggressions, because after all you're just acting in self defense.


This issue is where I find this fast growth of people being emotionally attached to their argument, especially on the internet.


You literally have prestigious places of education, like Yale, that has huge groups of students advocating and starting a petition to remove the right of free speech because of how harmful these micro aggressions are.

And so if you use logic in a debate, rather than emotion, and say something that someone finds offensive, though completely 100% factually true, then you are akin to assaulting somebody.

And so of course, acting on emotion to fight these injustices is completely okay because you're doing it for a good reason and because you're a good person who thinks about feelings (except of course the feelings of the person who used logic on you, because of course they don't have feelings if they use logic and say something factually true, but offensive to some demographic of some sort ).


I find some arguments that I emotionally disagree with, yet logically agree with 100%, but I can separate the two, and I find that 99% of the time I go with the logical argument rather than the emotional one.

Using emotion as your motivation doesn't do anybody good. Many tyrannical leaders throughout time were backed almost 100% by emotion and thought in their mind they are doing the right thing, because they feel it with their heart.


Also another contributing factor is the schools from grade 1 all the way through teach you what to think, rather than how to think.


So when you grow up and have a tenured professor teach you about micro aggressions, and white privilege (making you feel guilty over something you have no control over, and essentially saying you have less rights because of this, while simultaneously telling you that you can't discriminate against people of other races and sixual preference/gender for something they were born with and have no control over), etc, many people don't question these things or use critical thinking to recognize the cognitive dissonance that is being indoctrinated in today's youth (actually pretty much every era of time has some level of youth indoctrination).

I totally understand you, AlBQuirky.

You have all raised great points, but I'm fascinated by what The Sentinel has said. I honestly did not know about this micro aggression thing. It seems incredibly dangerous to instill that kind of attitude in people. That is a cause for great concern imo.

I also agree, AlBQuirky, any kind of etiquette or manners are getting eroded to the point of extinction. Furthermore, I find that people freely curse a lot more now than they used to. Even I'm guilty of that, and I have to stop myself from becoming too complacent in that regard.

THIS is why I hate the current scholastic atmosphere. It's all brainwashing, not brain enlightening.

Thanks for the info about this "micro/macro aggression." I had no idea about any of that. Of course, it has been about 15 years since I last set foot in a classroom

s7o, I think you have a great point. Marketing, aka advertising, strives for new buzzwords every chance it gets. Hook a buzzword to a product and you have instant product recognition. Then the brainless masses tweet, retweet, and hashtag the snot out of this new buzzword, because it's deemed cool by imbeciles. And then there is grammar and spelling, that are at all time lows, I think. Lazy people let the computers tell them if your, you're, or yore and to, too, or two is correct via the spellchecker. Marry this with the "limited characters per tweet" that made people start abbreviating everything and you have a society that may know how to read, but I consider illiterate.

On-line offers a sense of anonymity. Misplaced and groundless though it is, people still feel they are behind something that protects them, lets them not be themselves, something that they feel makes for a greater permissiveness--as long as they don't talk religion or politics and are not blatantly and glaringly rude.

It is hard to keep yourself same in real life social situation and on-line. It's a deliberate effort, a conscious self-scrutiny and deliberate choice to remain the same. Not everyone will go into such depth to remain the same on-line and in real world.