Posts
Behind every human being we have experiences, environments & personalities that perpetually mould and shape our present form.
One form is my opinion that I dislike people who do not engage in fruitful online debate/or i dislike meaningless online arguments on social media.
I see it as a form of energy vampirism.
Why do I dislike & discourage the energetic vampirism that comes from feeding ONLINE ARGUMENTS that are OUTSIDE the realm of healthy academic scholarly debate or Socratic inquiry between two or more adults designed to open/expand the mind to encourage multi-dimensional perception?
It’s a long story.
When I reference “people who spend their adult life arguing online”:
What is an argument ?
Expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with
evidence in order to convince your audience to adopt your point of
view or take action.
- It begins with a main /central claim (the thesis), which is supported
by reasons, and those reasons are then supported by evidence.
- It presents reasonable/logical ideas to convince the audience.
- It considers the audience; what are their values, morals, and beliefs,
and how will this impact their reception of the claims being made?
- It considers the oppositions instead of ignoring or attacking him/her.
- It considers the issue from multiple perspectives as a means of thoroughly analyzing it before judgment.
I am referring to those who engage in arguing that is NOT aligned to the aforementioned in that it is:
1. Resorts to attacking, name calling, juvenile or immature, resorting to insults or profane slurs to attack target. I am pretty open minded but honestly I prefer to
leave any and all pseudo intellectual social discourse in my 6th grade debating class..
2. Empirically invalid. No solid data point: quantitative or qualitative.
So usually you aren't anyone important if you are just arguing via social media, if you want to be important publish your work in a journal/academia/research. Otherwise you cannot claim you are saying “novel” things, it is all “subjective”. you are using people
who have put information that is novel and trying to spin it into your own agenda. I’m all about harvesting data to understand evidence.
Until you have a set of data points to prove otherwise stop using bias & emotional rhetoric to fuel your opinions.
I’ll try to do the same.
3. Time wasters.
With all your back and forth semantics, waste time. Nobody can back up your writing or research with literature that is empirical.
Waste of time, fools will be foolish, and if you enjoy the discourse, toastmasters or academic debating would be more productive uses of time to work on your Socratic line of thought.
4. Lack of self awareness.
Never understood the allure of gathering intel from anyone who isn’t attuned to who they are.
So those arguing online usually lack self insight.
There is little to no motivation to self reflect or self introspect and everything outside your own self is the issue, with little causation to your own self being the problem.
Unfortunately fools who argue with other fools online do not rejoice in much of the self-introspective Socratic questioning that will enable self examination to awaken self change.
5. The false ego rocket fuel:
You may be arguing online for “fun” or “self proclaimed kicks” or “semi self aware” and doing it due to your own egotistical, sadistic, cunning desires.
(Trolls, deep fakes).
An example: years ago , I dated one of these, who was a Conservative, FAR RIGHT WING self proclaimed “troll” who legitimately enjoyed trolling the opposite spectrum of the political spectrum online.
I watched him laugh and rejoice at the comments that he made that were intentionally annoying, offensive & as bait a feminist/leftist LGBTI (or whatever his current “victim” of the day was and HE FOUND IT HYSTERICAL). (Even more baffling is how good of a human my ex is, to this day we remain friends).
He did sometimes engage in discussion. But nothing compared to what I’ve now seen in the present occult/magick community.
My ex told me he would socially engineer reactions online to monitor responses in his own words.
But after hours of watching his nonchalant baiting, I can never take anyone who loves to argue on menial topics seriously: (spiritually or
mentally)
This is only a small primer into why I never take anyone who loves to argue online seriously.
The academic literature speaks a plethora more than an adult in the hamster wheel, unable to see they are playing checkers in a left vs right, design by social engineering and the think tanks of Tavistock, you play the part they put you to be.
A dialectic of irrational and repetitive arguments is never productive. It lacks a solution or a higher order of resolution, i posit a question:
Why are you behaving to destroy when you are simultaneously proclaiming to want to create a world better?
Why am I writing this? Free speech is not free. If you can discourse over the same nonsense and never find any solution; I’m sorry, but aren’t you are part of the same problem?
How do I know?
Life experience.
Learning.
Growing.
Changing.
Repeat.
My love of learning and living and devouring the highest level of what if; and how can we be better?
If we can be better, let’s do it, let’s move into a better solution?
I have many years of experience that is beyond the understanding of most people.
I have gone through things nobody understands and that isn’t said in an elitist way but in a truthful traumatic testament to reclaim my own reality.
I will continue to explore my own history with online freelance “writing” in high school; and how it got me expelled and my teachers sued my parents for my free speech.
In addition to my study of digital media/journalism & film/media after high school & how it disenchanted me so far away from all forms of media that I stopped all pursuits of writing, communicating & journalism due to the ramifications of the Australian Media & Journalism industry destroying all creative, investigative journalism & incentivising censorship and conglomerates.
- Vulcana la Vinca
No comments:
Post a Comment