A while ago, I friended a family friend’s son on Facebook. Nice guy, always pretty quiet, but generally reasonable – at least, that’s how I had known him in the 90s, and I hadn’t really seen him much since.
After friending him and his sister, I realized both were Ron Paul supporters. Sure, this could work: at least there wouldn’t be a lot of unfriendly liberal/conservative banter and we’d be able to get along. Then I started paying closer attention to some of his posts.
The status updates contained mostly self-labeled “rants” about how there’s a new world order out there, even using the term “Matrix” to describe the reality people experience each day.
As I’ve been blocked from viewing his account, I’m unable to show the reader any of these. But rest assured, there was much linking to infowars.com about how there is mercury in all of the vaccines your kids take, how a global new world order was going to take over and enslave the human race, how fluoride is terrible for you, and how if you didn’t believe any of this or watch his linked videos, you’re a slave and a moron.
His friends jumped in whenever someone dissented in any way – typical crowd mentality, which is unfortunate. As stated many times elsewhere in this blog, moronic crowd logic thinks only about effects on our individual selves and then builds a (anti-)philosophy of individualism around that fact, instead of looking at life holistically through the natural order.
I tried gently steering the discourse toward something positive, like reality, asking him to challenge his assumptions and ensure they were well grounded before shouting people down – for example, about how they are eugenicists if they would like to see any type of reduction in human population. Following is one conversation which ended in his blocking my account.
Here, he had posted a link about how someone was complaining of overpopulation, then laughing in his status about how silly it is to even think such a thing. I had mentioned to him that just because the world could support more humans short term, does that justify our consumer lifestyles or our numbers? And wouldn’t we be better suited to taking up far less arable land and striking a balance with nature? He responded:
“considering there are NOT too many of us, cause we all know the earth can support about 100 billion people, its a joke to say theres not enough nutritious food and fresh water. Fresh water is everywhere. generate it out of the air like I do. http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.ecoloblue.com that being a side issue…i DEFINITELY DO NOT want to reduce the population…not even by one life! Only a eugenicist would advocate such a reduction.”
Here, the obvious logical fallacy argument applies, along with the defensive individualistic rant. One hundred billion (cue Dr. Evil imitation) is over fourteen times the current population, and look how many billions are already suffering for lack of decent leadership and the relief valve in the form of illegal immigration and bad trade agreements provided by Europe and the US? This reality makes no sense to most people brought up in quiet suburbs.
The following is what he had to say about the idea of a possibly Kenyan-born President Obama…when I told him that it didn’t really matter where he was born, only that he was the next oligarch in line to take the crown, he responded:
Birth cirtificates are definitely an issue, and pushing them aside is a sign of delusion. Considering Obama was not born in the US, as being required to by the constitution in order to be President, its a huuuuuuuuuge issue. wouldn’t surprise if Arnold is the next president, but he makes me sick cause we all know he is a Natzi supporter… http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.arnoldexposed.com”
We once again see the polarization of democracy – arguing about semantics like birth certificates instead of how good a leader Obama is and what his qualifications are.
There’s also a humorous jump from Consitutional law – a fair argument, but again ignoring the reality of who Obama actually is – to how Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi (not Natzi) supporter.
I tried to tell him that it was the fault of idiot voters who would actually allow someone like Ah-nuld to be elected the leader of the third-largest economy in the world (well, before it went bankrupt). The response:
“well considering there is widespread voter fraud, its not a problem of solely blaming the people. but the point is, if someone is not eligable to be president based on that birth cirtificate…then they SHOULD NOT be president…duh! Besides it does matter. We are exposing the corruption, the lies, and the tyranny!”
So nothing matters to him except his own conspiracy theory, perpetuated
by websites hungry for traffic, and the fact that they are “exposing the tyranny”. Note the lack of solutions or speaking of the finer points, like root causes, effects, and how to move forward – again, a view into the defensive political polarization we see in our “democracy”.
I was done playing the nice guy, so I tried to tell him how action is what counts, not exposure. Even if there are “lies and tyranny” at the highest levels of government (aren’t there always?), the best way to change it is first locally (read: organically).
Why do you think white enclaves exist, I asked? Because people want to separate themselves from the “lies and tyranny” (or, nanny state and wealth resentment), especially as it pertains to their wealth – the biggest motivator for most people in our society, yet another problem not discussed in the ideas of liberalistic “freedom” and “democracy”.
I quoted Pentti Linkola and told him that only someone who hates life would, a) shout down someone as a eugenicist like a liberal shouts down someone as a racist to end an argument prematurely, and b) advocate that human population grows instead of shrinks considering how disorganized most countries are.
I also pointed out that we are only on lease on this planet and will be gone long before the planet is, stating that an ice age would be the best thing for humanity, as it was thousands of years ago when the first civilized Scandinavians that survived decided to stick around in their new, cold surroundings. A healthy cultured ensued when people realized how powerful nature was and what a profound effect it has on all life.
I was promptly ignored so he could continue living in a fantasy world of 
paranoia, citing the crowd favorites of freedom and liberty, denying anything having to do with nature:
“its clear at this point you have been extremely brainwashed and conditioned. Its ok. we all were, but mostly everyone still is. Since you advocate a population reduction…you’ll find nothing wrong when the global elite decide to kill all you know. All the innocent will die. It is not up to you or me to decide who owns the Earth or whether we are temporay residents of the planet. At this point, you’re clearly someone who is against freedom and liberty for all those who live on this planet. You will be deleted and blocked so that you don’t trick others here into supporting your eugenicist views, and its sad you have not woken up. You werent even able to watch a free online movie that would have shashed your matrix of denial bubble. I won’t waste anymore time with you.”
So I was dealing with the maturity level of middle schoolers in trying to gently swing them over a bit to reality. This was a pretty cool experiment, if one that required patience.
At one point a few weeks back, before things got nasty & personal for him, I emailed him and told him a few things:
1. that I would lay off his posts if he wanted me to do so, to avoid any nasty confrontations
2. that asking solid questions lays the groundwork for reasoned discussion and I can’t ignore that fact
3. that I don’t want to offend him but would challenge anyone’s assumptions if they were so broadly based (NWO, Matrix, etc.).
At the time, he said it was fine and that there were no issues with me continuing to get into discussions with him and his friends about his rants. I guess the idea that a growing human population and its plastic-world consumption are not good things sent him over the edge.
This interaction and the mess which ensued taught me a few things:
- Social networking sites highlight the more immediate / basic parts of the personality of most individuals – even if one tries to mask it, it ultimately comes out. Updating from mobile phones about how, “oh noes, it’s snowing!” and “work sucks, this is the worst day EV – ERRRR!” goes to show just what these sites have accomplished, no matter how many bells and whistles they come with.
- Reasoned discussion is still taboo. Trying to get to the root cause of why people feel the way they do only results in them throwing the ball back in your court, passing the buck, and labeling you a racist, eugenicist, or anti-freedom war-mongerer.
- People who start out with grand assumptions perpetuated by paranoia-fueled websites, like “there is a New World Order that is coming to get you and your family; hide!!” and “you live in a Matrix like Neo before he woke up – how sad for you!” are simply unable to get past the six inches in front of their face when it comes to reality.
Sitting in front of computers and shouting about paranoid delusions does nothing to help any situation, and social networking sites – instead of opening people up to new views and more of reality – only serve to allow people to place their heads further into the sand. One view on one website is taken for granted and grabbed onto with all the force of the crowd, until that view becomes passe and it’s thrown out for a new view.
So social networking really only perpetuates crowd logic and discourages actual social discourse, and the evidence is above.
Fluoride is banned from the water supply everywhere but the USA, it lowers IQ & is addressed credibly by scientists worldwide (google it) & it explains American stupidity. Overpop is pointless for Europeans to discuss: we’re dying out & you cant do anything about others’ breeding. 1 WORLD GOVT is the goal of the now defunct Western elites & no longer a concern. Ron Paul is ok but your ex-amigo seems anti-nationalist. Blood-kinship + Nationalism = Spiritual Strength. Ask Chinese & Russians.
I like being able to play around with different thoughts and ideas on social networking sites and seeing how different people I know react as I toy with them in my own head.. I went through a conspiracy theory phase and It started spiraling into stupidity when I was reading about lizard creatures that emit energies that interact with our DNA.
I really enjoy both yours and Brett Stevens’ posts among the others that contribute to the blog.. I’m considering a Major in philosophy and I was wondering if there’s something you should look out for/look for between one college and another when it comes to studying this subject there. Any suggestions?
I read your post with delight. I like the way you think so far, I will keep reading.
Now for my 2 cents:
First, I agree with you, social networking reinforces “group-think”. It allows poorly thought out or plagiarized beliefs to become further entrenched in a person’s mind. If all around you agree without debate or question this unconsciously affirms the belief. It also feels good to have someone agree with you especially when one rants because it has all the force of passion. Since we, generally speaking, instinctively search for pleasure it appeals to many uncritical thinkers (read morons) to increase the agreement, which feels good and requires little introspection into the belief holder’s bias and failings in reasoning, and decrease the questioners and debaters, hence your permaban from the young man’s social network.
While this problem is endemic to social networking sites I don’t, however, believe that this problem is originated by them. This is a condition of the lazy mind. The endless stream of people that pass through this life with the intention of never exerting more brain power than is necessary to eat, sleep, defecate and have sex all while being “entertained” in some way or another have always been and will always be. I think that the social networking sites have the great capacity to exacerbate this condition and it scares me.
It scares me that these same people as I mentioned above have the idea that they are “entitled to their own opinion” and so forcefully aver that. I have always believed that one is not “entitled” to an opinion without merit, one not based on empirical evidence or sound reasoning. Otherwise one is merely claiming an “entitlement” to say any garbage they can dream up and spew that poison into the sea of other unthinking, eager to believe meat puppets. One must be able to defend their position if they are going to exercise their right to have one. Quite clearly this young man you corresponded with was not prepared to do that and, likely, incapable of doing so.
The young man was also throwing around terms he did not understand. By suggesting that population growth was perhaps out of control you would not be a “eugenicist”, which would be one concerned with “improving” the race by things like selective breeding or gene pool manipulation, but you would be a Malthusian. He also instantly lost the argument by Godwin’s Law since he implies that voters would support a Nazi sympathizer.
I do agree with the fellow on one point – the birth place of Obama would be of import. I don’t dispute he was born in the US. But if there was serious (not right-wing lunacy) question about Obama’s birth place being outside of the US this would be important since I believe that the dilution of the Constitution is a bad thing for you guys (I am Canadian). The rules must be upheld. The continued dismantling of such a startlingly smart and important document will be the downfall of the country and it is being allowed by the very people charged with protecting and enforcing it – The People. I see more and more instances of this in the US, small episodes of erosion at the Constitution turning the country into a fascist state. John Philpot Curran said it best “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”.
Your point about the next oligarch in line is well taken. So far Obama has done none of what he promised (save trying to move health-care through but that was more of a Hillary baby wasn’t it?) and does not appear to be doing anything to change Washington. There was so much fertile ground for you to debate on that issue that it is sad the young man stuck to the tired old “birther” claim. But if I may be so bold as to interject semantically here, I must correct you. Arguing about the birth certificate isn’t semantics, it may have been more apt to refer to his argument as pedantic.
Anyway, I hope you won’t ban me for my comments : P as I would like to stick around and poke about in your thoughts a bit more.
Social networking sites are for kids. Your friend’s son listens to too much Allan Watt, which I also listen to at times, but I think the problem lies in the fact that this particular individual is temporarily brainwashed with what he’s reading / listening to and is not open minded enough / mature enough to be able to consider your views, which should be taken into account. Again, social networking sites are for kids. The issue here is the immaturity of your friend.
- Hans
This is a situation that, I believe, most have experienced at one time or another. It is extremely difficult to convince someone, crowd mentality or not, about something that goes against their prior teachings or stereotypes. While those that are open minded and seeking new information may be open to new ideas, the majority of the population (I have found) do not want new ideas, but rather are seeking out things to further their current mindsets and stereotypes. For example, those that dislike Obama will seek out information that further discredits him, and they will openly ignore all information that goes against their presuppositions. Again, I am not saying that all of humanity is like this, but I have found that the majority are.
As for social networks, I would have to agree with you. Crowd mentality is what the social networks feed on. People tend to stick to their own mindsets. Obama supporters will go to supporting websites primarily, while viewing the detesters occasionally. The same could be said for the other way around. Social Networks polarize this because an Obama supporter will not befriend a detester for personal reasons, while they still remain curious (at times) to see what the detester has to say.
I feel like I am speaking in circles, but I am sure you understand where I am going with this. Your post did a great job of relaying the feelings I often have when visiting conservative websites. My only advice is never to take things personally, and simply enjoy the learning experience. Your situation, however, doesn’t seem much like a learning experience but more like a trial of patience.
Wow, what a crazy little story considering I experienced something similar with a friend on Myspace. Mind you, I’d already heard most of his paranoia fueled rantings over the phone. The vast irony of all of this is that for all his opinions he didn’t vote in the last election.
Honestly, this could be a cautionary tale for this new generation of net surfers. There’s so much misinformation masquerading as “the truth” and these days fewer people ask questions. Blame it on legit news sites hopping online and the mistrust in modern American journalism.
Facebook does a great job at highlighting social weakness. Most don’t realize how much they are actually revealing about themselves. At the same time, most people can’t appreciate this comedy (since most people are, apparently, morons). Facebook is an amusing psychological experiment. It’s fun to analyze some of the transparent drivel these creatures post, typically manifesting from some inner-feeling of inadequacy and longing for attention and/or approval.
In regard to the hard-headed “liberty” boy, and this goes for the majority of his breed, there is a fundamental flaw in the way they interpret experiential data, or what I would call a cognitive barrier. They suffer from an adherence to absolutism. Their belief systems are established to fulfill EMOTIONAL needs and shortcomings. After the belief system has been established, they become irrationally uncompromising and pursuit only the “facts” that help prop up their worldview (this is why they spew so much hyperbole as well).
People who cling to absolutes are utterly frightened by the transient and unpredictable nature of the Universe. They are unable to affirm any thought of randomness, chaos, or anything resembling purposelessness — they are unable to let go. Something has always got to be in control of what they do not understand (e.g., God, the NWO, space aliens, etc.). They are not out to seek truth or enlightenment, they are out to fulfill emotional, human desires — certainty and significance.
This happened with a dear friend of mine from back in High School. I have mental issues of my own and was trying to pull him out of the abyss but he just ended up sucking me in to the point where I had to end the friendship because I was losing my mind trying to rationalize with a freaking lunatic.
Now I just find conspiracy theorists utterly hilarious.