Intellectual Fragility and Emotional Online Petulance

People are way too emotionally attached to idea, especially on social media, and especially liberalism, to be able to have serious conversations by first taking themselves out of the conversation. A lot of it can be said on the side of conservatism as well.

I do not think I am either, or wish to be labelled as anything - just to put it out there. And I do not think I am all knowing in any sense.

However, I think there are a few reasons why we are seeing this phenomenon of petulant social media spats by supposedly learned people and people in the places of influence along with the masses.

The masses either don't know enough about the subjects and have surface knowledge of it or don't know at all. They see everything as teams, and they want to forgo the responsibility of having to know something before forming an opinion on it, to the apparent leaders of that team. Now, I don't profess to know much about anything myself as I have said above. But I try placing myself in a healthy position of not forming rigid opinions about subject matter where my knowledge lacks. Instead I engage with an open mind and learn along the way.

Amongst the learned people and those in places of influences who have more knowledge than the masses over subject matters that they talk about, I see many who are afraid of losing voice upon which they have based their influence. They think if they admit that maybe they need a rethink they would be seen as weak and their reputation fed to the hungry wolves. Such people unfortunately place too much importance upon the gained influence than seeking knowledge through honest and open engagement with others and with source materials.

Then there are self destructive people who are spiralling and want someone to put them out of their misery. Not much need to be said of such types but that either give them what they need or ignore them completely.

And then there are people who are more influential than knowledgeable - popular but not informed. These people like feeding their influence to either maintain it or for growth. They will take sides with better thinkers depending on who they have trusted on another subject before and it paid off, and those who can maximise their influence. These are not original thinkers but media parrots. These people muddy the water most and harm any discourse immensely. Unfortunately we are littered with these types both in mainstream and new media.

I forgot to add the category of trolls when I wrote on X within the learned and influential people. Those who knowingly mislead people because they want to further their own agenda or those in their zone of interest, and those who just take pleasure provocation, but also another category within it who think constructive provocation is necessary to push the Overton window on various subjects.

Lastly there seems to be people who wish to be challenged and really get to the bottom of things - so they won't give up ground - because otherwise they won't be able to rule our their hypothesis. Their song and dance is fixed in moments but not for eternity. These people sometime cannot articulate that to the masses so they are perceived wrongly by the masses but their honest counterparts know the score. And these are the right kind of people we want discussing various subject matters with each other so we give each idea a good shake. They can be emotional - but it is out of passion for learning and exploring - and not for self glory.

That is as far as I can see it, the reasons for this phenomenon of intellectual fragility and petulant behaviour from various people online. For me, to a large extent, conservatism and liberalism are fake suppositories, more relevant to the anywhere people of today, trying to replace a more traditionalist viewpoint of any set of people. Depending on that it would incorporate many different elements into a singular viewpoint, the future guided by being informed from the past but not being stuck in it, and different from one nation to another depending on their people.

However, who am I to say much on this topic, at least not by first acknowledging that I myself am very much a product of the anywhere class. Well, at least one that neither doesn't wants to remain nor think its wise to espouse the anywhere sentimentalities in the masses. Although that is what our "betters" have decided for us. Globalism and one people future - amalgamation to the nth degree - into being the star trek of the future. The American model - that only works when you have a singular constitution that binds everyone together. It might be the future where we all end up but what that constitution is will not be decided by the people unlike in America. A forced globalisation that would first require to neuter the unagreeable elements. It is an interesting thing to think about and something I oppose although not without merits when it comes to certain situations. But that is for another time and another day.

Thank you for reading.