This is such a naive take that I'm pretty flabbergasted by it.
In an individual conversation most of what you way is true, you can at least expect to have a somewhat honest back and forth, and shut down the conversation cordially if its not going anywhere.
Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, there isn't shit my group can do about it other than submit to your crap flood. Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring.
If I choose violence then you have the option of choosing counter violence (defense), running away (shutting down ones forum), or death (letting the forum turn into a toxic brew).
> Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, t
Look at what you just wrote here. Somehow, you've decided that we're a hivemind and telepathically colluding to "collectively be an asshole". Or maybe, you imagine that we do it the old-fashioned way with some side-channel communication.
You don't believe this about your own group though. And it's obvious why... because you know you're not a telepath, and that there's no side-channel communication going on where you all decide to collectively be assholes. When someone from your side is an asshole (are you willing to admit it happens once in awhile), it's just because that one guy is an asshole, and you probably don't even know him. He just showed up.
Your beliefs are driven by an information disparity here, and some natural biases. Because they're all mostly pseudonymous, it's easy to not look closely and see that it's only one being an asshole, rather than the whole group. You're also biasing them up nicely, the non-assholes already anticipate being treated that way, so they lean into it. The same is happening on your side too, you're just oblivious to it, and there's no reason to explore this... what would you do with it anyway? Bringing it up would make you seem like a group traitor, and mulling it over yourself just makes you feel bad. You can't defect, you're on the good side after all.
They're seeing the same as you from the other side. Thus each side believes the other to be disingenuous, but know that they themselves are just victims of the disingenuity.
> Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring.
From the other side, of course. Your side never does this. You're the good guys. Only the bad guys do that.
Of course, if your side did do it, it would only be for the best reasons. And only the other people in your group would do it, you never do that yourself.
In an individual conversation most of what you way is true, you can at least expect to have a somewhat honest back and forth, and shut down the conversation cordially if its not going anywhere.
Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, there isn't shit my group can do about it other than submit to your crap flood. Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring.
If I choose violence then you have the option of choosing counter violence (defense), running away (shutting down ones forum), or death (letting the forum turn into a toxic brew).