It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could've Been a Rant, but I Decided Better

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Hello ATS-

Silly people--silly people who, for whatever reason, always disregard and argue against informative and knowledgeable comments on topics that one is, at the very least, well versed and knowledgeable.

Why do they do what they do?

There are few topics on which I speak with authority on ATS, an authority that is built up from years of experience working or participating directly in certain fields, and the judicial system and legal issues is one. So, when I counter a claim, or try to expand the knowledge of people in threads and comments where it is painfully obvious that they don't understand that about which they are speaking, why is it that, nine times out of ten, it is met with anger and ad hominem attacks?

Is this just a symptom of the bigger problem in our society where no one is never wrong and that all opinions matter, even if they run counter to facts and truth? Is it because it's easier to act intelligent on the internet than to actually become knowledgeable and expand one's intelligence in real life? Is belittling people who are more intelligent on a topic than you the new norm, just to maybe make you feel smart instead of just acknowledging that you're wrong?

I've been pretty lucky lately, and it seems like people with whom I have a history of strong disagreements have ended up having non-confrontational discussions lately, and we both seem to walk away learning something and bettering out understanding--it's been really enjoyable. But then it just takes that one person to come along and just mash that lemon right into your eye and really negate some of the good that's been happening on ATS lately (at least with me and others).

So, again, why is this necessary with some people? Do any of you have any insight as to the psychological reasoning behind this? I get that the internet is a hard place to believe what people say, and I understand when people can be skeptical of my claims of knowledge and understanding about certain topics, but it's those who go out of their way to belittle and insult because they get something wrong and you try to spread the knowledge who really just trample on the enjoyment and usefulness of this site.

I really would like to know the "why" behind it, and I'm hoping that some of you have looked into it and have the answers. I promise that I won't belittle you or argue for the sake of arguing just because you may know something that I do not.

Best regards, and let's all try to make this place the best that it can be. I'm not perfect at it, but at least I'm trying.

Slap




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Hello ATS-

Silly people--silly people who, for whatever reason, always disregard and argue against informative and knowledgeable comments on topics that one is, at the very least, well versed and knowledgeable.

Why do they do what they do?

There are few topics on which I speak with authority on ATS, an authority that is built up from years of experience working or participating directly in certain fields, and the judicial system and legal issues is one. So, when I counter a claim, or try to expand the knowledge of people in threads and comments where it is painfully obvious that they don't understand that about which they are speaking, why is it that, nine times out of ten, it is met with anger and ad hominem attacks?

Is this just a symptom of the bigger problem in our society where no one is never wrong and that all opinions matter, even if they run counter to facts and truth? Is it because it's easier to act intelligent on the internet than to actually become knowledgeable and expand one's intelligence in real life? Is belittling people who are more intelligent on a topic than you the new norm, just to maybe make you feel smart instead of just acknowledging that you're wrong?

I've been pretty lucky lately, and it seems like people with whom I have a history of strong disagreements have ended up having non-confrontational discussions lately, and we both seem to walk away learning something and bettering out understanding--it's been really enjoyable. But then it just takes that one person to come along and just mash that lemon right into your eye and really negate some of the good that's been happening on ATS lately (at least with me and others).

So, again, why is this necessary with some people? Do any of you have any insight as to the psychological reasoning behind this? I get that the internet is a hard place to believe what people say, and I understand when people can be skeptical of my claims of knowledge and understanding about certain topics, but it's those who go out of their way to belittle and insult because they get something wrong and you try to spread the knowledge who really just trample on the enjoyment and usefulness of this site.

I really would like to know the "why" behind it, and I'm hoping that some of you have looked into it and have the answers. I promise that I won't belittle you or argue for the sake of arguing just because you may know something that I do not.

Best regards, and let's all try to make this place the best that it can be. I'm not perfect at it, but at least I'm trying.

Slap


Some people simply don't know how to debate, nor have they ever had their facts and logic tested.

I've literally been in debates where you can state something like 2+2 = 4 and someone will call you racist. Or my favorite, will debate if 2 + 2 actually equals four because Fox News said so...



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I blame Facebook.....

I was talking to my mother in law today and she was blindly on the trump bandwagon wondering why people don't get he's doing what's best for the country, and that he represents the people.

Then I pointed out to her that more than half of voters voted against him and disagree with him on what's best for the country.

Long silence followed.
edit on 6-2-2018 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Well, for what it's worth, I appreciate being able to debate/discuss things with you, even when we disagree.




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

*Students outraged at Obama statements, when they're told they're from Trump*
*Schiff gets trolled by Russians over fake information*

The reactions of those to whom you speak are a result of years and years of MK-ultra type indoctrination via CNN & the tards.

Whatever the MSM says - is true, everything else is lies - EVERYTHING!!!

Sad, I know, but it really is the only thing that explains this acute-ignorance that manifests itself with every keystroke.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah, that's highly possible, and I believe it to certainly be major ingredient--Twitter, too, and maybe even moreso, because it started out as such a limited way to talk to others (with its character limitations) that it fosters/ed a way of communicating that lacks ability to form complete ideas that have supporting facts.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I've wondered recently if all of the "talking heads" which dominate news shows have in fact replaced real journalism.
This could be part of the reason so many are conflating opinion with fact!

Thank you for a well written and thoughtful OP!


edit on 6-2-2018 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

It's not even that, though--often enough, it has nothing to do with what a media source says, it's just a fabricated "reality" that they defend absolutely, even in the face of actual knowledge and facts.

And I'm not talking about the complex mathematical equations that made Space-X's rocket flight today happen, or the differences between the philosophies of Nietzsche versus Confucius--I'm talking simple, verifiable truths and concepts that are easily verifiable if someone doesn't want to take one's word for it.

It simply amazes me.


edit on 6-2-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Correct a fool and he will hate you for it. Correct a wise man and he will thank you for it.

Pretty much sums it up.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Yes, I do concede that some of the places to which, traditionally speaking, we could seek information and assume it to be relatively true, have become--for lack of a better word--unbelievable these days. This includes the MSM talking heads (which really are just parrots for producers), as well as scholarly professors, and even scientists and experts in their fields.

It seems as though everything is tainted these days by special interests, so I can see how that would definitely feed a culture of disbelief and constant skepticism.

Thanks for a thoughtful response.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: HummaKavula
Correct a fool and he will hate you for it. Correct a wise man and he will thank you for it.

Pretty much sums it up.

You said it, not me



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Why don't you tell us all exactly what it is you do in your work? Are you a attorney? Are you a judge? Are you a D.A. or an assistant D.A.....I mean your telling us all about silly people, and how you in your job are an expert in legal matters, so exactly what is it you do? Because you spent the biggest part of your work day on ATS...arguing with silly people. So slapmonkey come clean and tell us just what you do in that legal field. Please, we all want to know. So we can understand your expertise in said subject and you talking to the rest of us like we're below you. Inquiring minds want to know.
edit on 6-2-2018 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Hi, Slapmonkey,

I think a lot of disagreements are because of different personal experiences and that person1’s truth (based from their life experiences) can be different or opposite from person2’s truth (based on person2’s experiences). That being said, I think a lot of people don’t like feeling their life-experiences are invalidated and/or thought of as “wrong”, either from self or others. I don't know... maybe it would be like finding out one was living in a lie and ego might not know how to cope with it.

In fields I’d been in over 40 years, a lot of people bashed me, tried to discredit me, humiliate me, etc., even in public. It seemed a lot of them were insecure about something in their lives. If they refused to communicate maturely, I no longer discussed it, until they could communicate respectfully. I felt if people wanted to believe the other person’s perspective, more power to them… maybe they will learn something I wasn’t able to. I try to not bash the other side/s. I learned that having to prove myself in order for others to think I was valid wasn’t worth the stress. Those who know I'm legit, know I know my material. Those that want to bash... I prefer to put my focus elsewhere.

I feel that (for me), if I feel I have to prove anything, even to myself, then I’m insecure about something. I then try to resolve within myself “why” I feel the need to prove anything or call on others to prove themselves. I used to be extremely bull-headed. I’m still bull-headed, but I also don’t mind being proven wrong… I feel it is one more way that I can grow.

edit on 2018 2 6 by oldme because: Added a word



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ah, the old "feelings vs facts" debate. Remember this?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: oldme

I get what you're saying, but that's a different issue than what I'm discussion.

My point is not about 'truths based on experiences,' but rather indisputable facts concerning easily researched information for anyone who has access to the internet and the hand-eye coordination to type words and hit enter.

This not-a-rant stemmed from a back-and-forth concerning signing medical waivers/consents and one's ability to sue afterward if something goes wrong from a material/substance used in the procedure.

A person made the comment that if you sign the consent, that you cannot sue because your signature waived all right to litigation; I commented that this is not the case, and gave examples as to why signing convoluted documents that the layperson cannot be expected to fully comprehend does not absolve one's ability to sue after the fact. I even included a couple examples as to when courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in exactly these situations.

These are things that are easily provable and researchable by anyone in modern times, but instead of understand that the black-and-white opinion presented by this person was wrong, they proceeded to argue, started slinging the ad hominems at me, called me childish names and then made improvable predictions about the future as if to make them sound smarter.

This is the type of thing about which I'm talking, and it just really makes one lose faith in people's abilities to think critically and reflects poorly on their desire to learn.

For better or for worse, I have a teacher's approach to life, and I like to spread knowledge about things I understand--people like in the instance I noted really make me second guess sharing information, but I just can't let people continue believing things that are verifiably incorrect without an effort by me to help them learn.

I feel for actual teachers in school when they encounter apathetic confrontational students.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The best part of that was when she says, "These are the FBI's statistics; they're not a liberal organization," with a straight face


Sorry, I couldn't resist, given everything that's going down right now.

Sadly, though, Newt (whatta name) was correct in saying that he's going to focus on how people feel over generalized statistics, because we have become a nation that worries more about feelings than we do about reality and facts/statistics, and a large bulk who actually look at facts and statistics are incapable of constructively doing so, so they get misinterpreted and bastardized to fit a preconceived notion.

We're in a tough place right now as a species: We have unprecedented access to education and knowledge, but it seems to be having an inverted effect on intelligence. People are (seemingly, at least) increasingly less capable of applying knowledge to real-world situations and finding appropriate solutions or coming to logical conclusions. I'm certainly not claiming that I know everything or that I'm perfect at this, but I see a large number of people who are so apathetic about even trying that it's a sad reflection on our future overall.

In a millennia or two, I wouldn't be surprised to see if we've taken ourselves unwittingly back to the stone age and will have to restart the cycle all over again.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: openyourmind1262

For the last time, I never claimed to be an expert, just well versed in the judicial processes and technicalities that govern the topic that you are making incorrect claims about, as it is my day job to understand. You are the one who claims that I think that I'm an expert and a 'know-it-all.'

But therein lies the problem--you seem to interpret my correction of your claims as "talking down," yet I was simply explaining why you were wrong, citing instances that support my point. If you can't accept that sort of discourse, then so be it.

Best regards--I'll take Oldme's advice and put my focus elsewhere. Like he notes, there's no need to prove anything to you. I gave you the information as to why you were wrong, and I gave you enough details about what I do for a living--if you choose to ignore either or both, that's your choice.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I agree with you.

In the past, in order to even spectate in a certain place that had physical contact (martial arts), the place had me sign a release form that was vague, saying in any situation, they were not held responsible for any injuries to participants & spectators, as well as removing the rights to sue, in the case of injury, even though I was only a spectator. If a person didn't sign it, they were asked to leave.

I later asked my attorney if release forms have that much coverage and power. He said no release form, no matter how it is written, can be all-inclusive to prevent the person/establishment from being sued from every possibility… that would be illegal. And vague ones were the weakest, in his opinion. He was also a judge pro-tem. and I believed him.

When it came time to write a release form for my business, he told me to be as specific as possible vs. vague... and include as much detail as I can, as that was better for me; the more specific, the better. But, reminded me no release form can be written to say it covers me from all scenarios and remove a client's ability to sue.

I feel for teachers, too.

What I meant by separate truths was that if person1 has an experience/s that is different from person2 ( layperson’s experiences), person1 might hold their own as truths based on their own experience, despite what a layperson says. I got tired of the bashing & head-butting, so I shelled up and kept teachings only for my clients.
edit on 2018 2 7 by oldme because: typo :

edit on 2018 2 7 by oldme because: Changed word "any" to "all", for more clarity.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I stay away from Ancient Civs etc as much as possible for that reason. It can be like educating people from a starting point of absolute zero. Some answers would need to be a bloody essay to get them informed of supporting info.

Such efforts are often unappreciated or even unread.

Just not worth it most of the time



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: skalla

Yeah, I feel your pain in some regards, although ancient civilizations is only a topic that I know just enough to be dangerous, but I'm not even close to being an expert.

Even so, and on the flip side, I also see a rigidness with well-learned folks and experts in that particular field to poopoo anything presented, no matter how scientifically researched, that is contrary to what they've been taught or that goes against the status quo. The phrase, "It's a possibility," gets treated like a demonic summoning spell.

I guess that it happens everywhere--some people blindly defend their ignorance, and others defend that which they believe to be correct based on a lot of time and work in the field. I suppose that some fields, though, are much more prone to being left up to speculation than others.

In my particular example of the legal field, though, speculation should not be a thing, as laws and court precedent and written rulings exist for everyone to see.

Meh, I think I'm done with this branch of discussion. I appreciate your willingness to opine, but I think that I just need to accept this as an unavoidable constant in our ATS society, and need to just learn to better ignore these folks.

And FYI, your absence in the archaeological forums on this site has not gone unnoticed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join