The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How I can I be less bothered ad hominem attacks by randos online? I recently was pushing back against some seed-oil sophistry on substack (not even advocating for no-meat/veganism like you might assume, there isn't actually good evidence that vegan/vegetarian is better than the mediterranean diet), and some dude told me my profile picture looked like that of a prematurely aged teenager (for reference, here is the picture). I know this is bait because most of the time seed-oil sophists don't have any real arguments, but I couldn't prevent it from really bothering me. I've had similar experiences with non-appearance comments about intelligence, personal character, etc. and they all bother me to some extent. In real life this isn't really an issue because it's faux pas to make these kinds of comments (or at least has been since I graduated high school). Maybe a sign of some underlying insecurities I need to work through, or that I need to get a bit more sleep. Thoughts the motte?
Psychological pain is like physical pain. You have to use willpower to push past it until it has happened so many times that your psychological nerves are dead and it no longer hurts.
But then you will either appear to be dead inside, or you will just be dead inside.
The way I do it is to think of it sort of like spheres of influence. You currently see the situation as that dude attacked your avatar and you felt hurt, but that's not actually the situation. The actual situation is that you are sitting at your computer or on your phone and you read a comment and the way you interpreted that comment hurt. Yes you interpreted the comment the way it was meant, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that all of it took place within your own head - influenced by others, but unaffected because only you have any impact on your thoughts. And when you read that comment, inside your brain you know that it is bait, and more importantly you know you are right, that's why you argued in the first place. That might change in the future, but right now you know your argument is correct, and the fact he replied with an ad hom is further evidence that you are right. So who cares what that idiot thinks? He doesn't live inside your head, you do. Brush that dirt off your shoulder.
Like training physical pain tolerance it will still hurt, until it doesn't. And it won't work all the time regardless, and if you are betrayed or attacked out of nowhere it can fail. But that method definitely helps even if you aren't planning on becoming dead inside.
I think this is actually the crux of the issue -- I can't speak for @thejdizzler, but the bait that hurts the most is the bait that appeals to areas where you're not certain you're right. Like @Southkraut says, ad hominems have their appeal because they bypass any attempt at actually engaging with the issue substantively. The intent is to make someone doubt their judgment, not by criticizing the judgment itself, but by imposing doubt on their ability to make a judgment at all. If that hits at the right place at the right time, it can hit a sore spot, where someone already doubts their ability to make a judgment or even fears that they've made a dangerously wrongheaded one.
Obviously the solution is to find a firm footing for yourself and place some trust in your own judgment, but that can be very hard, especially when the issue in question is as intense, emotionally charged, and hard to answer as the sorts of questions that are summoned by the culture war. That's why you see so many ad hominems that target people's relationship with the opposite sex -- relationship length and satisfaction is cratering, sexual mores seem to change by the hour, and there's a sense that the bottom has fallen out of all the stable norms that allowed people to understand themselves as good and worthy partners. That moral vaccum enables malicious actors to exploit uncertainty by claiming the 100% guaranteed, certified, free range moral high ground, a kind of moral arbitrage in a market that's not sure what the price is. There are whole twitter threads now where progressive and conservative men shout slurs at each other, both implying that their ideologies are so pathetic that they alone make them repulsive to women. ("Incel!" "Cuck!")
I also get the sense that jdizzler is pretty agreeable, and agreeable people find it very hard to stomach people not liking them for reasons totally outside their control because of their drive for social harmony. There are also a lot of people who don't so much argue as think out loud, and if someone's earnest thinking-out-loud prompts an ad hominem, that can be pretty destabilizing, like kicking someone when they're trying to get up.
Agree with what you said here and with your assessment of me. I am very agreeable, which is why I think I struggle with these kinds of attacks so much. I also tend to doubt many of my beliefs about the world. There are only a few (veganism, various Christian moral virtues) that I'm very sure about, which makes it very easy to poke holes in my armor.
I'm glad it resonated!
If you're the sort of person who wears your heart on your sleeve (as I am), then it can be very easy and tempting to pour yourself out in the environments you find yourself, like the internet. That can be incredibly useful, and powerful, and there have been times when exposing some of my most intense concerns to internet discussion has made my life better. But there have also been many times where it's made it worse.
I always like to remember the parable of Jesus where he says "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." If your treasure is in internet respect, then internet disrespect will be like wounds to the heart. And the more you invest yourself in internet discussions, the more of yourself you share, the more you're putting your treasure there.
While sometimes I enjoy internet discussions and even arguments, I've come to realize they're incredibly limited, and need to be entered into and continued carefully. I've started and chosen not to post more posts than I've ever published, because I realized the post would be fruitless, or lead to unnecessary dispute, or was excessively disagreeable, or simply would expose a vulnerability that shouldn't be exposed to the internet.
I think older nettizens find it easy to create a barrier between the internet and real life, understanding the boundaries appropriate to both. In particular, the old-school attitude of the net (which the motte participates in in some ways) was always that disagreeableness was inevitable and everything was under debate rules.
And under that framework, you shouldn't expose a weakness in your worldview any more than your defense attorney should make an argument for the prosecution. In part this represented the initial population of the internet -- male, educated, systems-oriented, academic. And in part it represents the reality that the internet is simply a cacophony of strangers. I don't know you. You don't know me. We have no relationship, no ties, I could insult you and swear death and devastation on you, and unless I crossed a legal boundary so severely that it got the real police involved, this would have no impact at all on my life outside of the net. I might get banned, but what is a ban? Nothing.
I'm not sure how old you are. I'm fairly young. Young enough that the internet has been real life for about as long as I've been active on it. But old enough to find online dating new-fangled, fr fr. (Did I use that correctly?) I think younger generations are having to re-learn the wisdom that the net is volatile and operates under debate rules. It's an important lesson. And like the law -- anything you say can and will be used against you, and the consequences for the misuse of that power are minimal.
Like everything, the internet is about risk vs reward. That's different for everyone. But hopefully, from the discomfort of seeing just how freely personal attacks flow on the internet, you can help yourself judge where the risk-benefit line stands for you. It obviously varies by context. But my personal view is that the places where discussing important aspects of your worldview, especially ones you're not sure about, has benefit outweighing risk is almost 0. But that's for you to decide. And I wish the best for you in deciding it.
I don’t think this is right. If anything I would say it’s important to expose your weaknesses. Partly as a show of good faith, and partly to find out (or show you know) where they are.
Part of the point of chatting in the Motte is so strangers can tell you, “I get that you believe A -> B -> C” but you can’t actually back up the first half of that”. Doesn’t mean you have to stop believing it, but you should be aware going forward that it’s an axiom not a strong inference or fact.
To put it another way, I think arguing on the motte is meant to be like sparring rather than like battle, and sparring won’t help you improve if you fight in a defensive manner, never over-extend, and refuse to be open.
EDIT: you were talking about the internet not the Motte. There’s one of my vulnerabilities for you - I’m a natural speed reader and I sometimes miss detail. The point is still valid I think but yes, don’t throw pearls before swine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link