You can't have an opinion without making enemies. You can't defend an opinion without making dire enemies.
I disagree there. A mark of a good politician is to be able to have an opinion and defend it without pissing off good people. Some people do indeed deserve to be pissed off, but other people are reasonable, even pleasant folks who happen to hold a different viewpoint. Making them your enemies is not only dumb, it's mean. Especially if done just to show you're powerful. Just my opinion.
But who wants to be a politician? It's also noteworthy that most politicians of note succeed by demonizing their opponents. Rage is a vastly more motivating emotion than agreement. Highlighting "the other" as the cause of strife mobilizes opposition. Making friends is a sign of weakness. Remember, we're talking politics, here. In practical terms, we're talking about the internet: where your audience is rarely the guy you're talking to. Where someone can decide they hate your guts for something you wrote (that they didn't understand) three years ago. The "reasonable people" are never the problem: the problem is people who think they're reasonable but start their discussions with "you don't know what you're talking about." Making them your enemies is simply efficient.
1) Who is brian? 2) No, I do not. I start my discussions out with "Rather hyperbolic. The statistics quoted are accurate, but it's unfair to say that market forces aren't working." "Couple things they should have gotten into but didn't:" "There are substantial impediments to adoption, unfortunately." "This is a very silly statement." "Not mentioned in the article:" "I don't think so. " "Well, a real tongue-in-cheek paper on time travel." "I asked you to do a very specific thing for a very specific reason. " "You keep missing this: I'm all about letting new users do whatever they want on the site." "Perfect demonstration of the problem: You don't know me, I don't know you. You don't know the culture around here, I do." "No, it sends the message that I am an insular and guarded asshole, rather than an opening and welcoming asshole." "There's a reason I chose to put it in #bugski: the likelihood of new users following that tag is negligible." That's an even dozen examples - the most egregious ones I could find over the past week - wherein my preamble is basically 'I have knowledge that you do not." In every example I could have said "you don't know what you're talking about." In every example, I very carefully said anything but that. Think about that for a minute. 1) I have knowledge. 2) I wish to share it. 3) I'm going out of my way to avoid antagonizing the other party. You've seen me debate; you've probably concluded that when I wish to antagonize someone, I'm pretty good at it. Have you ever wondered what it's like to try and share knowledge with someone who doesn't wish to receive it? And how you go about it? And the approaches you take? See, most of the people on here have. We're all trying to get along, so we're generally respectful. Every now and then, though, somebody new shows up. They're usually a big fish in a small pond; they're used to being the smartest guy in the room. And when you demonstrate that their knowledge is imperfect, however nicely, from a position where they do not know or respect your credentials, you present them with an existential threat. You demonstrate to them that they might be the smartest guy in the room no longer. You present a different opinion that they're under no pressure to accept... ...and a lot of them don't. A lot of them, in fact, react with antagonism. Case in point that I didn't link to: mk and I go back and forth about site stuff all the time. He screwed up about tags once; as a consequence, I rub his nose in it every time he suggests a site functionality I disagree with. It probably annoys him, but I honestly don't think it annoys him more than any running joke of which you are the butt. It also gives me an inflated position of credibility which is useful when you're telling someone else how to run their website. So here I am, having a conversation with mk about site functionality when suddenly a wild redditor appears: Riddle me this, Batman - how, exactly, does one prevent conflict with someone whose first words to you are "you are one of the most insufferable people on the internet?" Other than going "whelp, I just made an enemy from having an opinion, maybe I ought not to converse with that there luckless fellow?"You are one of the most insufferable people on the internet. I am severely disappointed, coming here from reddit, to find you here whining.
1) I thought your name was Brian for some reason. My name's Mike, by the way, but I post under the username mike to throw folks off. I don't have much experience in online forums, apart from an awesome small email group I'm a part of with 6 extraordinary folks, this is my first online community. I didn't even know what reddit was when I joined hubski. I have to imagine that if people were more real or more transparent, we'd have less of this kind of behavior where folks open a "discussion" with a personal attack. (By the way, i'm probably one the top transparent folks here - I post links to my stuff all the time and make it easy to find out who Mike Naylor is). 2) Yeah, like I said, you say something akin to "you don't know what you're talking about". And I will also repeat the winky emoticon: ;-) I appreciate that you make the effort to not say that directly, but it is how you come across. I appreciate that you don't suffer fools. I also appreciate that you can and do back up your opinion with numerous citations -- very commendable! And I find your commentary amusing - I smile almost every time I read what you write which I why I haven't muted you etc. I do wonder why you go to such extraordinary efforts to make your point, your previous reply to me a case in point. I assume you enjoy very much arguing, and I imagine you could effectively argue both sides of a point. What perhaps turns people off is not your arguments, but the impression that you are doing so not to help out a fellow human but more because you enjoy feeling powerful. I don't think you can deny that, and I also don't think you give a rat's ass. So what's my point? I don't know. Sometimes I just like hearing myself talk. ;-) Peace!
Do you see how much you're projecting? You have this image of me (including a name) that includes my need to feel "powerful" by having a conversation on an online forum. You call my efforts "extraordinary" but if you were paying attention, you'll see that the previous reply came ten minutes after yours - so I couldn't have spent more than ten minutes on it. Is spending ten minutes on a conversation really that extraordinary? And how on earth would it make me feel powerful? You see the problem? You're not talking to me, you're talking to a straw man of me, one which you've already ascribed emotions, motivations, strengths, weaknesses, and all the rest. If I don't match your straw man, there's cognitive dissonance, which is always uncomfortable, and always resolves against my interests. So people get mad. Check the time. How long did that take? And how "powerful" do you think it made me feel?
You know that's not what I'm referring to. I think you know exactly why some people find you overbearing, even "insufferable". And you use your very fine debating skills to argue that that they are wrong to perceive things this way, and you will grind people down until they give up, and you will display the attributes of someone who is being overbearing and insufferable. If this is the impression people are getting, how is that their fault? And who is to say you don't match my straw man? How do I know you aren't arguing just because you want or even need to be right? I only know what you project, and you can argue I'm wrong, and you can argue everyone else is wrong, and maybe I am, and maybe they are, but your reasoning is entirely circular. You project an image of someone who likes to argue and be right and knock people around, and when someone points it out you accuse them of projecting, and argue about it to show you're right, and knock people around while doing it. You see the problem? You're not talking to me, you're talking to a straw man of me, one which you've already decided has constructed a straw man of you. My name's Mike. What's yours?
So hold up. I'm now 4 comments deep in a discussion about how overbearing I am. I've pointed out that the assumptions you've made about me are so incredibly precise they include my name (which, again, you guessed incorrectly). I've said nothing about you - other than that you're projecting... which I think I'm entitled to point out, as you decided to make this conversation about me. Yet here we are, discussing the merits of, well, me, based on your assumptions. You're now asking me to disprove a negative - "who is to say you don't match my straw man" is rhetorically equivalent to Glenn Beck demanding his guests prove they are not secret muslims. You effectively struck up a conversation with me which you freely, and with full dudgeon, have swung to "prove you're not the asshole I think you are." So I've got two choices here: 1) "Whatever, man" and mute/ignore you because frankly, WTF, man? 2) Continue to argue your game on your terms using your examples under your logic with you as the arbiter and hope that somehow I can prove to you that I'm not an asshole. 'cuz that's the context of the discussion. MIKE: You're an asshole but I still like you, smiley face. KB: I'm not, actually, here are a bunch of examples that directly contradict your evidence that I'm an asshole. MIKE: The fact that you provide examples that you're not an asshole proves what an asshole you are. KB: Seriously, dude, I'm just trying to have a conversation. MIKE: Whatever. You just need to be right which proves you're an asshole. And here's the thing: It never once occurred to you that I"m having this conversation (this tedious, retread, tired-ass conversation) because I don't like people thinking I'm an asshole. Back up to where we started: Me arguing "You can't have an opinion without making enemies." Case in point: I've had to go five rounds with you to demonstrate that I'm not a dick, and each step of the way you feel entitled to treat me more and more dickishly. Yeah, I see the problem. I said "you make enemies on the Internet" and in an attempt to prove I'm wrong, you decided to treat me like an enemy. My name's not Brian. You'll excuse me if I don't wish to be more familiar than that.
Yeah, ok. But I've never said you were an asshole. I don't think you're an asshole. I do think you have a very direct style and it does not surprise me that people find it overbearing. That is exactly where this conversation started with you stating that think you're the most ignored/muted/whatever username on hubski, and that it's okay because you're defending a viewpoint and you expect to make enemies. Maybe I've haven't been on online groups long enough to find out that you can't help but make enemies, or maybe I don't have strong enough opinions. A couple of funny things: (a) I do accuse you of making it easy for people to perceive you as overbearing. Your response to that could be perceived as overbearing. A self-referential contradiction on your part.
(b) You accuse me of treating you as an enemy when I'm trying to prove that you don't need to make enemies. A self-referential contradiction on my part.
(c) We could mute each other and really bring this conversation full circle! That's not a contradiction, but still chock full of self-referential structure on both our parts. But no, I don't want an enemy today and I apologize for my part in the escalation. I should have stopped the conversation way up after "depends on what you mean by 'good' politician"! I thought it would fun to poke at you a little, but I don't think it ended up adding much of value to the discussion after that. -- Mike :-) (the smiley proves I'm not an asshole)
For what it is worth, I think you are both assholes. But you are both assholes that have participated in the same podcast,, which kind of makes you kin.