After quite some time I have come to realise that often,
its not what perspective or opinion which is considered 'right' or 'wrong' or even which one you actually end up agreeing with or/and connecting with, but more the way the argument is put forth by each person. This is what determines respect and worth of a person, particularly so in the social media scene where you may never physically meet the person.
Its when you can see the reasons and justifications of the other side and it is put forward in a way that encourages open minded debate with respect have you reached a acceptable level of civility.
Civility and restraint have seem to have been lost somewhere along the way and there are too many people acting like boneheads and they seem to be attracted to photography communities 😉
This is my best guess as to why this seems to happen more frequently on the net than it does in person:
Consider the trolley problem. It is a thought experiment that reveals how we express one set of values when things like touch and the proximity of people are involved, and another set of values when abstractions are substituted for the touch sight etc. are part of the thinking process.
If a person is presented with a problem where they have to pull a lever in order to to save 5 people but one person dies, and that's the only possible option, generally people are far more likely to sacrifice the one for the 5. But when the same problem is presented except they have to actually push the person to their death in order to save the 5 instead of pulling a lever, the answer shifts. The key point is the lever is a layer of abstraction. When we reason out problems involving the empathy channels in our brain, or by way of more direct perceptions like sight, sound, touch and so on we think and behave quite differently than we do when inserting abstractions in the mix. Abstractions like numbers, levers, guns, or thinking of people as a label and not as actual living breathing beings change the way we decide things.
We are biologically wired for a more sociopathic decision tree when we bypass our social cohesion circuits to frame any issue. This is why dehumanizing people with words and ideas often comes before acts of disrespect or even slaughter. It's why when a person's brain is injured in such a way that the emotion centers are severed from their vision center that they develop a delusion that their loved ones, beloved pets etc. have been replaced by exact duplicates, but only when those loved ones are seen. If they should call on the phone, the delusion disappeared. (capgras syndrome)
When we artificially separate ourselves by way of abstractions from one another we can do awful things. This is why corporations will sacrifice the planet or masses of people for quarterly profits for instance, or destroy many people's experience of life for an incremental advantage that is arguably not worth it at all. It is also why governments or people in charge of the cultural narrative can make terrible things happen, and why people are more troll like on the internet. It could be said we have a trolley problem.
I could be missing something(s)
+Joe Carter Interesting. I do not have one bit of respect for humanity. And if someone comes to my stream and tells me he is a Nazi, I will tell him to fuck off and block him. There is nothing further to discuss. I have endured enough evil in my life, and it is bullshit that being polite to evil people will somehow make one superior or change the other person.
I am guided by ethics – not empathy. My rule is for the greater good of humankind and I have little time for petty egos.
+Tessa Schlesinger I tend to see poorly behaving humans the same way I see poorly socialized dogs. If we are not guided during our developmental phase to move toward a blend of self sufficiency, and recognition that we count on each other and the environment we live in to nourish and protect us so we need to find and share our value as best we can in places where it will be of use; in other words to constructively satisfy our innate drives to belong and contribute value in the context of the larger social body. If we do not do that we tend to behave as an expression of those frustrated drives. I generally don't converse unless there is an exchange of ideas. Not because I would not want to, but because it is not possible. I welcome reasoned or sincere disagreement, but I do not see disrespect as a platform to make the effort to share. At best it's a mud wrestling match. Spreads dirt, accomplishes nothing.
+Joe Carter I disagree.
The reason we have much of the mess we have today is that, in the name of tolerance, we permitted things that have destroyed the structure of society. We have millions of single mothers and children growing up without fathers because we became tolerant of people who got pregnant outside marriage.
The poorest people in the world are single mothers, and the most deprived children are those of single mothers. They do not do well in life.
Social censure is there for a reason.
Living in harmony with the environment (i.e. earth) has nothing to do with tolerating psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour. I am a minimalist and have been involved in environmentalism since 1970 when I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
I have met sufficient people in my life to recognize evil when I see it. And one does not convert evil to goodness by being tolerant of it or 'exchanging ideas' or working with the person/people in order to reach some sort of compromise. There is no compromise.
Hannah Arendt spoke about this when she examined why the German people accepted Hitler (and why Americans are accepting Trump). There is a phrase associated with her – the banality of evil.
What you are advocating in your effort to 'be nice' is the banality of evil. However, that is something you might not understand now.
For the record, your sentence structure is appalling. It is extremely difficult to understand what you are saying, and you are a poor writer. It's called purple prose. One has to read it through several times because you are long winded.
Now you can take that as constructive criticism and do something about it (I spent two years working as an editor for two publishing houses in London and have been published since about 1962).
Now what is your response to my telling you that your writing is, for lack of a better word 'pretentious.' You might like to read Jamie Whyte's book 'Crimes Against Logic."
I call it as I see it. And I respect only those who have earned my respect. I respect people when they can take correction, when they adjust, and move on to a better path.
QUOTE: “Never react to an evil in such a way as to augment it,” the great French philosopher and activist Simone Weil wrote in 1933 as she contemplated how to make use of our suffering amid a world that seemed to be falling apart. But modern life is no fairy tale and one of its most disorienting perplexities is that evil isn’t always as easily recognizable as a Grimm stepmother.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/02/07/hannah-arendt-the-banality-of-evil/
+Tessa Schlesinger You are shadow boxing your own strawman when comes to me. I never advocated for being nice. I simply said I do not exchange ideas with people who are not socialized enough to trade ideas without insults.
+Joe Carter ??? What you said did not make sense.
The first time I told my sister about 'being socialized' (I first head the term in America) and explained to her that I was supposed to join in group activities and get along with everybody, she said "What rot. I wouldn't do that. It would depend on what the group was doing."
Being socialized is 'being nice.' Check your dictionary. It means to be friendly and to be polite to people in a way so that you can all get along.
That can lead to evil. There are simply people that one is not friendly with.
I also don't exchange ideas at this stage of my life. I've met maybe 5 human beings in my life who brought something to my attention that I hadn't heard of before. I read for some 5 hours every day of my life. As a young person growing up, I read between 2 and 4 books every single day.
At some point, there just aren't that many 'ideas' around.
Why don't you read?
Getting information from people is bound to mislead you. On the other hand, when you have read 50 or 60 books on any given discipline, then you have an extremely good understanding, and it is doubtful that many will tell you anything new. Most people just don't know that much.
I talk to people who are on a similar path to my own. Progressive, minimalistic, atheist, humanist, wanting amd working towards the the greater good.
Прекрасная работа!!
Hello +Gerard Blacklock I think that most people just do not know how to listen ?
+Gerard Blacklock I am sorry to hear that you have run into this sort of annoyance. I have been fortunate not to have encountered that sort of trolling here on G+. I fail to see how any of your astonishingly impactful photos could give anyone the idea that leaving an uncivil comment would be the thing to do. Totally baffling for one of my temperament. You have brought a lot of light and beauty into my world while I have been going through some health issues. You have shown me that the world is a precious and beautiful place that must be cherished and protected.
+Carolyn Fahm Some people like to destroy other people.
Gorgeous!!….Thanks!!….