Sun Aug 27 19:34:39 UTC 2023 As a self-identified misanthrope I've always prioritized quality over quantity when it comes to relationships. Combined with being an Internet user since before the birth of the web, it's always felt to me like just being on social media is the equivalent of dropping a ball of sodium in a bucket of water: For whatever reason, regardless of how diplomatic and neutral I tried to be, my very nature apparently made violent reactions inevitable. Small wonder that I've basically abandoned the online sphere in favor of other forms of interaction - I don't like the false dichotomies of 'real world' or 'real life', and I've always viewed the term 'meatspace' with distaste regardless of who was saying it. And yet here I am again, sharing my unsolicited opinion, throwing it out into the waters. Paddle to the sea. Why bother in this particular forum? Why ask why? Most of us don't go around offering unsolicited opinions, let alone shoving other people's faces into them like disobedient dogs. Certainly at this point in my life I'm no exception; I have a small remaining handful of trusted individuals, and whether I'm talking to one of them or the rest of the world, I'm as harmless as a kitten up a tree. Just as I avoid a great deal of violent crime by avoiding places and situations where it's more likely to happen, I avoid conflict of any kind as much as possible. In the old days of the eighties and nineties people would say, "I just don't let myself get sucked into drama." Which is fine and dandy - until you notice that a good number of these people have little to no qualms about starting what they supposedly try to avoid getting sucked into. And unlike a lot of other false equivalences, I can attest from personal experience as well as worldly observation that this indeed happens on all sides. No matter where a person stands, sits or lies on the political and cultural spectrums, as economist Carlo Cipolla noted, there is an equal chance of being stupid - and of going through life with a chip on one's shoulder and a challenging, confronting statement at the ready to brandish as proof of identity and superiority. If it's supposed to put an end to the discussion, it does that all too well. A dear friend of many years, one of those few and precious trusted individuals, like me bemoans the loss of so many friends and comrades whose bodies have seemingly been snatched, who now recoil from us in fear and loathing while hurling up virtual crosses and pointing fingers of accusation. Unlike me, he's still angry and confrontational enough - and optimistic, though he might scoff at that label - to try to communicate with the rest of the world. And unlike most of the rest of the world, I know that he has a lot more to say than just being angry. Problem: If you speak and no one else listens or hears, if you write and no one else reads, it won't make a difference to anyone but you. The question becomes: Are you interested in throwing virtual Molotov cocktails, or in mending fences and building bridges? I know my friend is one of those who can do both. I think that increasing despair is part of the reason he leans more toward the Molotovs, and I certainly understand and sympathize. But for many reasons, I'm inclined more toward fences and bridges; at most now and then a sharp but good-natured pinprick, from a porcupine who's uninclined to back up any further. My anger is silent and bitter cold, a tiny cube of ice that stays locked away in an insulated compartment. It keeps the rest of me cool, tempering my empathy by making sure it's in tune and in balance with all my other values. It informs every statement I make in every form; it is the silent and reflective pause of careful thought beforehand, in my ever more common choice to refrain altogether from speaking, typing or hitting SEND. Since what I want is to actually communicate - to be understood, and to understand - this obviously tends to cut down on a great deal of potential human interaction. I could wish we lived in a different world, but you can only be the change that you want to see to a certain point, and everyone has to determine that point for themselves - I've determined mine according to my desire for physical safety and social harmony. The discussions I do have are a joy and a balm to my soul, broad and far-reaching and in-depth beyond words; no matter what label these individuals give themselves, no matter what they deem sacred or taboo, no matter what supposed disagreements they think they have with me, they all continue to give me - as far as I can tell - nothing but honesty and love. At one point over the last decade, I was told by someone who subsequently ghosted me, "You weren't expressing political opinions. You were pissing people off. There's a difference." Regardless of intent, while mulling over these and other issues, I asked this friend above what he wanted to accomplish . Was it to piss people off, or was it actually - genuinely and honestly - to start a conversation? And despite his anger and despair, for the most part he still just wants to have intelligent conversation with actual normal reasonable people who use at least a few percent of the brain God or Nature's God gave them. So the next reasonable question I asked was, why do you think you're going to get that in any of these venues that are designed to do nothing more than suck up all your personal data, sell you shit and set us all at each other's throats? Because, and this is where most technical people would have started the discussion, he's also concerned about privacy. Aren't we all! But from who? And a million other questions that spring to mind. Personally I think most people today who live in one of the Five Eyes countries have a lot more to fear from corporations than from government, even if their politics are of a dissident flavor. Being a good leftist (so he says), my friend naturally does see a danger from corporations, but (in my opinion) is still stuck in the past in that he sees a generally greater threat from the state. But as I pointed out, it's all about your threat model . When he said that most of his incendiary critique would be aimed at his fellow leftists who he feels have betrayed their principles, I pointed out the obvious, that his greatest potential threat would be from those camps. This has gone on more than long enough, but in closing: It doesn't just matter what you say, and how you say it, and how you present yourself. It also matters where you say it. If my friend goes onto some random message board that allows anonymous posting, or a heavily partisan forum known for fomenting lunatic thought and action, he's going to get a certain type of response. Assuming that he presents his case in a diplomatic fashion that makes it clear to any reasonable person his goals are positive and not destructive, he would be far better served and serving if he were to present that case to a group of people like himself - who for whatever reason, from whatever perspective, are tired of the insanity. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to answer why it might be difficult to find such people, and why they might be reluctant to make their opinions known. **