Michael Lavorgna

Online rants are a bummer and drag everyone down. I applaud your efforts now and in the past to steer things in a positive direction, but you can only do so much. Ranting is almost inevitable to some degree. While I do enjoy the opportunity to chime in every once in a while, I wouldn't blame you for turning off comments in the future. I know of at least one other similar website that took that step and it has not diminished readership, I'm told.

The internet has definitely increased the visibility to anger but what is the root cause of so much anger to begin with?

I'm no psychologist but could it be information overload? When bombarded with so much to process the threshold of tolerance lowers and people will exhibit more anger. Unless we learn to turn off or turn down the flow, the pool will overflow, so to speak, and the result isn't pleasant.

I find this comment very debatable "Third, it's easier to be nasty in writing than in speech". I find many people have little trouble letting f bombs fly.

I wouldn't stop comments here. The comments here seem very tame compared to most of the net and real life.

Also, written communication doesn't always convey intonation or body language so the comment or response can be taken out of context.

Anyone who has worked in a corporate environment surely has experienced this with email and IM communication.

There might be ranting, but there's also polemics - a respected form of arguing a case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic

"A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position...

Polemics often concern issues in religion [e.g. MQA] or politics. A polemic style of writing was common in Ancient Greece... Since then, famous polemicists have included...George Orwell... Noam Chomsky... Christopher Hitchens".

I am all too happy to read the thoughts of people who make an intelligent, rational case. And if they have to fly in the face of vested interests and be a bit 'polemical' then bring it on! No one will die.

Please and thank you.

It's amazing how often we forget to type that, or words that express that. I may have just forgotten it a few minutes ago on the other post.

Passions create passionate posts, often devoid of anything but emotion. No mystery there, in my opinion. (I'm trying, see?)

This is why I've abandoned Facebook entirely, the stupid rants (at least among my "friends"). I'm glad you guys are calling this out.

I have a simple suggestion don’t write and talk about Ethernet cables and MQA.

I’m sure there are people who can talk intelligently about Ethernet cables I can’t due an NDA but isn’t it better to leave the MQA discussion to me?

Thanks a lot for reminding me :)

when people are afraid to express their opinions for fear of being attacked, whether physically (e.g., on college campuses) or virtually (e.g., online). We should agree to leave the harassment solely up to totalitarian governments.

Michael is right - a call for civility is in order. That said, I would also call for caution - needs to be say

1) Someone expressing disagreement is not ranting
2) Someone disagreeing with someone specifically (be it Michael or anyone else) is not insulting that someone
3) Attempting to discredit an idea - specially citing scientific principles - is not ranting
4) Science is not a belief system

That said - is definitely way more fun when things stay civil - discussions go longer and the arguments become more interesting...

Good post, Michael

v

"Don't lend your strength to that which you wish to be free from."
- Jewel

Many people instinctively fear what they don't understand. Others try to promote fiction and deception as science. Both groups are out of touch with reality. It's the opposite of mindfulness - and common sense.

Thanks for the regretfully necessary post, Michael.

I'm finding that in general, a lot of folks are just simply becoming addicted to outrage. They need their daily dose. We're all familiar with various media outlets who simply peddle outrage, day in day out, without providing any serious discourse or information.

I don't know what the solution is, I just hope that social norms one day catch up to technology.

I'm nearing 2 months of a Facebook detox and I don't feel like I've missed anything. I didn't leave social media completely and continue to enjoy Instagram greatly which is not an echo chamber and, for those I follow, virtually free of drama.

I still like specific forums but visiting them with much less frequency.

If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't post it.

(Which doesn't stop me from writing it, lol.)

"Trolling can be resumed to this:

Take a theosophist (or any other gnostic, for instance,) who pretends to be a “buddhist” (although he is overtly engorged with conceit and contempt (māna) towards the “lower” fringe of humans, that have not been initiated to its (nāmarūpa level) witchcraft thaumaturgy) - This theosophist will be defended by his other theosophist or gnostic friends. And they will call anyone that is not in accord with them, a “troll”. Period.

Now put any and all the other deviant “buddhisms” of this type, under the holding of “Mara Inc.”; and you have a genuine Buddhist regularly called a “troll”, by the so called “buddhists this”, “buddhists that” clique.

A genuine Buddhist can be called such if, first and before all, he has not been initiated in an edifice or place devoted to some special “exalted” purpose - but instead, by the only friend that counts: Buddha himself.

So today, you have all these “symbol minded” people that are calling the genuine Buddhists: “trolls”. With a great deal of hidden sarcasm between themselves. Yet they don’t like sarcasm coming from what they call sarcastically between themselves: “the trolls”.

As I usually say, there are three kinds of people. The many many ones who don’t know - the more and more ones who know and buy it - and the very very few ones who know and don’t. The genuine Buddhists are the latter. And then you have those who, not only are trapped in Mara’s net, but have also gulped profoundly the bait he also threw at them." ( https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-psychology-of-the-internet-trol... )

"Hypocrisy is an expression of ignorance combined with selfishness. It hides behind the complexities and contradictions of life, in order to deceive others and perpetuate its own self-delusion.

Although its stinking contents remains the same, falsehood constantly changes its form. It may express itself in brutal ways, or become the sweetest and most subtle poetry of pseudo-love, depending on temperament and occasion.

The saddest aspect of hypocrisy is probably the fact that before being a hypocrite towards others, an individual must be a hypocrite to himself. The liar and the insincere have lost their sense of reality. Their antahkarana is in trouble. Their connection to their higher soul has been sacrificed for them to deal with feelings of inner fear and compensatory emotions like ambition, vanity, search for power over others, and so on. These are false refuges from the anxieties of separativeness." Carlos Cardoso Aveline ( http://www.carloscardosoaveline.com/the-key-to-uprooting-hypocrisy/ )