On sharing controversial things

Since everything seems to be controversial now, some perspective to keep you sane

“The Political Discussion” by Emile Friant

We have a lot of fun here sharing perspectives on a variety of topics. I try and do so with respect, and even if you don’t agree (you of course never have to) I appreciate everyone subscribed who comments. No one is opted in to receiving my weekly thoughts to reply in bad faith (and I don’t think any regular commenters here are jerks).

My skin is thick, pretty much nothing online actually bothers me. As a forum nerd since the 90s and an active user on social, I’ve already seen every possible reply, ad-hominem and insult there is. I think people who have been online since the early days of the web aren’t as triggered as some other cohorts. Even during the last 10 years, where many previously reasonable people have become unreasonable while the masses lost their minds.

But anyway, maybe to help, if you happen to publish something controversial (which oddly many things are nowadays that shouldn’t be) let’s look at the motivations behind some of the types of replies you might get. Better understanding here improves your internet experience quite a bit.

Some people can’t consider another perspective. They are dogmatic and thus closed off to outside ideas. These are religious defenders. Don’t let them bother you, they are the way that they are. You don’t need to argue with Jehovah’s witnesses either, just let them be.

Some people will never like the data you share in response to something. You can present whatever research and citation, or multiple pieces for good measure to show a trend and they’ll pick them all apart. Of course they’ll miss your broader points. And usually your research is fine, especially when lots of good sources agree on something (unless you are pulling from the postmodern social science looney bin).

Some people have opinions but no conviction on anything. They deny the limits of our world, thus any truth escapes them, for once it is proven so, they must fight against it. To accept a truth would mean accepting a boundary and boundaries terrify those who mistake limitless choice for freedom. So they drift, mistaking doubt for depth.

Some people are really smart, understand your position and just existentially disagree - and that’s great actually, sometimes it takes 2 sides to make a market. If we all agreed all the time life would be boring. But you’ll not persuade these folk. I listen to their opinions respectfully, they might not always do the same but it’s fine. They don’t bother me.

Some people won’t like you talked about a certain topic, because they’ve been told only “experts” can (never mind if you actually have experience in the field, it’s never specific enough). They want you to “stick to sports” as I’ve shared before. This feels really illiberal honestly, especially with academia being so broken.

Some people will try to change the topic. Not because your point is wrong, but because it's uncomfortable. So they pivot to something adjacent, then argue loudly against that instead. It’s not debate, it’s evasion. You’ll spend ten minutes wondering if you’re crazy. You’re not. They’re just slippery.

Some people think tone is more important than truth. You could be calmly stating a fact, but if it feels condescending to them, you’ve lost. These folks want to be agreed with in exactly the right emotional key. I think therapy culture is somewhat responsible here.

Some people want to be the main character. Every conversation is secretly about them. They’ll twist your story into theirs, correct you just to be visible, or frame your post as an attack on their identity. Classic narcissistic behavior, a lot of that going around. Almost never worth debating, although potentially very amusing material for memes from them.

Some people are addicted to false balance. They’ll respond to clear, reasonable claims by insisting things like “both sides are wrong.” It's a reflex, not a principle. They think it makes them wise, when mostly it just makes them dull. Fence-sitting isn’t the same as perspective.

Some people want to gaslight you to believe 2+2 is something other than 4. They have lost the plot of base reality and are living in a fantasy world. The internet has always had crazy people, because the world has always had crazy people. You can ignore them or try to bring them back to reality, up to you.

Some people are bored and want sport. You’re not a person to them, you’re a post to dunk on. They don’t care about your argument or its implications, they just want a win (so they get like and a little dopamine). You can’t reach them because they’re not here to listen.

Some people agree with you, secretly. But they won’t say it publicly because they fear the crowd more than they value the truth. These are quiet sympathizers. Don’t get mad at them. Just know they exist. Maybe you’ll feel less alone.

Some people are trying. Maybe they don’t get it yet. Maybe they come off blunt or weird or misinformed. But they’re moving toward truth, not away from it. These people are always worth engaging with. Even if they’re wrong today, they might not be tomorrow.

Some people think everything is a crisis. Every post is a referendum on morality, every disagreement is violence, every typo is a red flag. They are incapable of proportion. You didn’t trigger them, the world did. You just happened to be nearby.

Some people need you to be wrong so they can feel right. It's not about content, it's about identity. They build their self-worth from opposition. If you said water is wet, they'd write 800 words explaining why it's actually damp. Let them rant. They probably should just have their own blog.

Some people treat clarity as aggression. If you're direct, they think you're mean. If you're certain, they think you're arrogant. These are the tone police. They think softness is virtue and fog is intelligence.

Some people believe disagreement is betrayal. If you're not fully aligned with their worldview, you must be an enemy. No nuance, no questions, no grace. These are the ideologues. Cult vibes in comment form. Smile and walk away.

Some people are haunted by past arguments they lost. So when they see your post, even if it's totally unrelated, they pounce. You remind them of someone who made them feel bad once, so now it’s their turn. Again here, this probably isn’t about you.

Some people are great commenters and provide context or perspective you didn’t think of. I love these people, thank you to those who do this.

Some people just didn’t read what you said. Really. They skimmed a sentence, filled in the rest, and came in swinging. You could clarify, but it won’t matter. They’re not here for understanding. They’re here for closure on something that never existed.