Is internet debate indicative of how people interact now?

[untermensche]

Some communication is seduction.

That can't be done over the internet.

There are plenty of stories of Internet seduction. It's practically a cliché.

I am talking about written communication.

Of course it can persuade. It persuades the most desperate and easily persuaded.

But it is not human seduction. Not even a fraction of it.

Have you ever seen human seduction? Participated? It might start as written communication but it involves a lot more than that. Eye contact for one thing. Human eye contact has effects that are not present in written communication. The sound of the voice has effects. The appearance of the animal has effects.

You have a stunted understanding of human seduction. You think it is the same thing as persuasion with written communication.

Try to step outside your box once in a while.

Sure. But many people who can't use their personality or status or position to command IRL, find that they do have that ability on the Internet.

They have no greater ability than anyone else. No greater ability than the jobless teenager.

All now have to defend their ideas instead of merely barking orders in a safe power structure.

It is very upsetting to many with positions of power and they don't do it.

Overall, I think it's a wash - The results are not better or worse per se, but a different group of people are empowered, while many of those who are traditionally empowered are deflated.

It is not a wash.

A meritocracy of ideas, where ideas have to be defended and boorish dictating behavior is clearly seen is not a wash.

It exposes deep societal problems. A society of masters and servants not based on any demonstrable merit but on sheer chance and a willingness to shit on your fellow man.

The chaos on the internet exposes deep seated problems in a society with class issues and the knowledge that one is either a dictating master or must submit to one.

 

[bilby]

There are plenty of stories of Internet seduction. It's practically a cliché.

I am talking about written communication.

Of course it can persuade. It persuades the most desperate and easily persuaded.

But it is not human seduction. Not even a fraction of it.

Have you ever seen human seduction? Participated? It might start as written communication but it involves a lot more than that. Eye contact for one thing. Human eye contact has effects that are not present in written communication. The sound of the voice has effects. The appearance of the animal has effects.

You have a stunted understanding of human seduction. You think it is the same thing as persuasion with written communication.

Try to step outside your box once in a while.

Sure. But many people who can't use their personality or status or position to command IRL, find that they do have that ability on the Internet.

They have no greater ability than anyone else. No greater ability than the jobless teenager.

All now have to defend their ideas instead of merely barking orders in a safe power structure.

It is very upsetting to many with positions of power and they don't do it.

Overall, I think it's a wash - The results are not better or worse per se, but a different group of people are empowered, while many of those who are traditionally empowered are deflated.

It is not a wash.

A meritocracy of ideas, where ideas have to be defended and boorish dictating behavior is clearly seen is not a wash.

It exposes deep societal problems. A society of masters and servants not based on any demonstrable merit but on sheer chance and a willingness to shit on your fellow man.

The chaos on the internet exposes deep seated problems in a society with class issues and the knowledge that one is either a dictating master or must submit to one.

Anyone who can extrapolate such an enormous amount of detail about what I was thinking from my brief reply must be either an absolute genius with a vast talent for getting to the very heart of someone else's mental processes; or a bloviating self-centred moron who cannot imagine his own limitations.

I wonder if you can guess which I think you are?

 

[Tigers!]

I am talking about written communication.

Of course it can persuade. It persuades the most desperate and easily persuaded.

But it is not human seduction. Not even a fraction of it.

Have you ever seen human seduction? Participated? It might start as written communication but it involves a lot more than that. Eye contact for one thing. Human eye contact has effects that are not present in written communication. The sound of the voice has effects. The appearance of the animal has effects.

You have a stunted understanding of human seduction. You think it is the same thing as persuasion with written communication.

Try to step outside your box once in a while.

Sure. But many people who can't use their personality or status or position to command IRL, find that they do have that ability on the Internet.

They have no greater ability than anyone else. No greater ability than the jobless teenager.

All now have to defend their ideas instead of merely barking orders in a safe power structure.

It is very upsetting to many with positions of power and they don't do it.

Overall, I think it's a wash - The results are not better or worse per se, but a different group of people are empowered, while many of those who are traditionally empowered are deflated.

It is not a wash.

A meritocracy of ideas, where ideas have to be defended and boorish dictating behavior is clearly seen is not a wash.

It exposes deep societal problems. A society of masters and servants not based on any demonstrable merit but on sheer chance and a willingness to shit on your fellow man.

The chaos on the internet exposes deep seated problems in a society with class issues and the knowledge that one is either a dictating master or must submit to one.

Anyone who can extrapolate such an enormous amount of detail about what I was thinking from my brief reply must be either an absolute genius with a vast talent for getting to the very heart of someone else's mental processes; or a bloviating self-centred moron who cannot imagine his own limitations.

I wonder if you can guess which I think you are?

Don't give him too many choices.

 

[untermensche]

Anyone who can extrapolate such an enormous amount of detail about what I was thinking from my brief reply must be either an absolute genius with a vast talent for getting to the very heart of someone else's mental processes; or a bloviating self-centred moron who cannot imagine his own limitations.

I wonder if you can guess which I think you are?

Anything can be dismissed with this juvenile drippling.

It is a response without content or intellect.

You play until shown to be a fool, then you vomit things like this.

Nauseating.