Maybe the first problem is to believe that ”immediate action” is needed. If you take the time to think twice and let your first feeling ”ripen” a few minutes, hours, days - you come to a less epidermic reaction. Has your opinion evolved or not, at least you have left an opportunity to a different pov to widen your sight.
But the other problem is the ”structure” of social networks, very much based on the instant.
I appreciate Substack vs Twitter for the length alllowed for all posts. It makes possible to express nuanced thoughts - leading to less ”primary” reactions.
But I agree with Artermix, sometimes people just ”bite” and don’t ”argue”. Those waste your time and ruin your nerves. ”There is none so deaf as he who will not hear.”
Yes, to me blocking is a form of censorship and either you're for censorship or against it. If you don't like it from TPTB how do you justify doing it yourself? People being inappropriate is another thing but differing in opinion or what you see are the facts is no reason to block someone.
When it comes to friends, the problem isn't their viewpoint is different so much as they want to silence mine and I won't have that. It just amazes me how people feel so uncomfortable when you say things against the status quo and wish to censor you.
I think the author of this essay generalized a bit on the blocking factor. The entire write up focused on social media and bloking without discussing further things (first assumption) and calling people who block weak.
Interesting enough blocking in martial arts is a defense technique. It is also very non violent and sends a direct message.
But beside that....the reasons for people blocking people in social media can be so different than just the author stating that these folks simply refuse to expand on topics that are sensitive and tye other side not wanting to hear that because of fear ......ok so what?
Maybe the other side does not want to be bothered with that topic for reasons that can go from total apathy to trauma.
The way I interpreted the use of blocking here is primary social media and I don't think people should block people because they don't like what they say because effectively that's censorship ... and that's what we're fighting against right?
I'm not talking about inappropriate commenting - bullying, sexually inappropriate, that kind of stuff - and Franklin obviously excludes that too. If something that someone says upsets them even if it wouldn't be normally considered inappropriate then perhaps it's best to have a discussion about it ... but if someone is particularly sensitive and feels they need to block for that reason OK.
I simply don't think that people should block others generally because they don't like what they say. Of course, they can block them if they want to but if you block people because you don't like what they say then how can you complain about censorship?
I used not to block people but toxicity needs to be stopped at one point it becomes counter productive to discuss to infinity. It removes the essence of life.
Another side is that as people we do grow in different directions and it is unfair to ask people to change. I have blocked many in the past decades. I never regretted it. Or.....I completely cut ties with "friends" who gave me absolutely nothing . Sometimes took me 40 years to realize there was a problem. I tried to ADAPTto these folks I even called best friends at times....., I attempred to understand and gave them passes.....I always ended up feeling like situations were building up levels of toxicity.
"Blocking" is nothing more than decluttering relationships that are empty. When it comes to social media it is necessary to be selective because the entire concept of social media is about garbage relationships. I did not only blocked people but completely removed 90% social media from my life way back in 2012. I will never regret it.
I did the same. I do not regret it, either. It is altogether a different matter when one is in another’s presence, can look into another person’s eyes, feel their intent, watch body language and hear voice inflection for subtle cues. Digital communication offers none of that. I think digital communication can be profoundly dangerous for that reason.
100% I agree with your post. You uncovered another side as well. In all truth tye author seems to be marketing digital sogial media as a mean to grow. To define people WEAK because you make a decision to cut ties......for a multitude of reasons seemed a bit provocatory.
I block those who are discourteous. They resort to shouting in all caps and name calling and all sorts of negativity. Anyone who disagrees with me but is courteous, I am happy to dialogue with. However I don't suffer fools who insist on defending TPTB when those powers intend to mislead and obfuscate. They are either intentional (maybe paid) trolls, or too indoctrinated to think for themselves.
There are many topics I have researched in depth. Take viruses and virology for example. There are no viruses (they have never been isolated), and virology is pseudoscience. Anyone who argues in favor of virology and taking injections to save humanity from phony pandemics has not done their due own diligence. They put their children and families in danger of food allergies, autism, autoimmune diseases, cancers and a whole host of other maladies, including death. I don't block them if they appear to be sincere, as I feel a duty to warn my fellow man about what is going on. But I can detect when someone is not being sincere as they tend to show their hand one way or another.
One topic if you talk truthfully about will certainly get you blocked, or even cancelled on social media. That topic is the Holocaust. We have been indoctrinated with books, movies, photographs, museums and eyewitness accounts of the gassing of Jews in "death" camps like Auschwitz. The number 6 million of the Holocaust cannot be questioned by law in many European nations and elsewhere. If the Holocaust was a true event, why can't it be questioned? Why has no one ever provided any scientific, forensic evidence for the event?
I prefer questions that can't be answered vs answers that can't be questioned. Truth does not fear investigation. When any "truth" is protected by law, red flags should go up all over the place.
One of my flaws, if you can call it that, is I insist on knowing truth. I work hard on truth discovery. I know what the authorities positions are, I was educated at a University. I also have experience in the US Army, so I am well versed in the practice of indoctrination from the receiving end. Knowing the official positions, I actively seek alternative truths that resonate with me.
I will state this: Anyone who has not questioned their education has not started on their path of self discovery. For anyone who wants to get started, I recommend John Taylor Gatto's first book Dumbing Us Down. John has other books on offer on the topic, and there are many of his lectures available on YouTube. John discovered the problems with schooling while a teacher in the NY public school system. In fact he was awarded Teacher Of The Year 5 times before he came out speaking against what he was doing in public school classrooms.
One last point. If I have an argument with someone on social media, and that someone insists on trying to discredit an author I present, and refuses to discuss what is in the author's book, I know that person is disingenuous. That person deserves to be blocked as his intent is not in a search for truth, but in defending his ignorant position.
I blocked one person….after finalizing the divorce.
Maybe the first problem is to believe that ”immediate action” is needed. If you take the time to think twice and let your first feeling ”ripen” a few minutes, hours, days - you come to a less epidermic reaction. Has your opinion evolved or not, at least you have left an opportunity to a different pov to widen your sight.
But the other problem is the ”structure” of social networks, very much based on the instant.
I appreciate Substack vs Twitter for the length alllowed for all posts. It makes possible to express nuanced thoughts - leading to less ”primary” reactions.
But I agree with Artermix, sometimes people just ”bite” and don’t ”argue”. Those waste your time and ruin your nerves. ”There is none so deaf as he who will not hear.”
Thanks for this challenging post ! 😉
Yes, to me blocking is a form of censorship and either you're for censorship or against it. If you don't like it from TPTB how do you justify doing it yourself? People being inappropriate is another thing but differing in opinion or what you see are the facts is no reason to block someone.
When it comes to friends, the problem isn't their viewpoint is different so much as they want to silence mine and I won't have that. It just amazes me how people feel so uncomfortable when you say things against the status quo and wish to censor you.
I think the author of this essay generalized a bit on the blocking factor. The entire write up focused on social media and bloking without discussing further things (first assumption) and calling people who block weak.
Interesting enough blocking in martial arts is a defense technique. It is also very non violent and sends a direct message.
But beside that....the reasons for people blocking people in social media can be so different than just the author stating that these folks simply refuse to expand on topics that are sensitive and tye other side not wanting to hear that because of fear ......ok so what?
Maybe the other side does not want to be bothered with that topic for reasons that can go from total apathy to trauma.
The way I interpreted the use of blocking here is primary social media and I don't think people should block people because they don't like what they say because effectively that's censorship ... and that's what we're fighting against right?
I'm not talking about inappropriate commenting - bullying, sexually inappropriate, that kind of stuff - and Franklin obviously excludes that too. If something that someone says upsets them even if it wouldn't be normally considered inappropriate then perhaps it's best to have a discussion about it ... but if someone is particularly sensitive and feels they need to block for that reason OK.
I simply don't think that people should block others generally because they don't like what they say. Of course, they can block them if they want to but if you block people because you don't like what they say then how can you complain about censorship?
I used not to block people but toxicity needs to be stopped at one point it becomes counter productive to discuss to infinity. It removes the essence of life.
Another side is that as people we do grow in different directions and it is unfair to ask people to change. I have blocked many in the past decades. I never regretted it. Or.....I completely cut ties with "friends" who gave me absolutely nothing . Sometimes took me 40 years to realize there was a problem. I tried to ADAPTto these folks I even called best friends at times....., I attempred to understand and gave them passes.....I always ended up feeling like situations were building up levels of toxicity.
"Blocking" is nothing more than decluttering relationships that are empty. When it comes to social media it is necessary to be selective because the entire concept of social media is about garbage relationships. I did not only blocked people but completely removed 90% social media from my life way back in 2012. I will never regret it.
I did the same. I do not regret it, either. It is altogether a different matter when one is in another’s presence, can look into another person’s eyes, feel their intent, watch body language and hear voice inflection for subtle cues. Digital communication offers none of that. I think digital communication can be profoundly dangerous for that reason.
100% I agree with your post. You uncovered another side as well. In all truth tye author seems to be marketing digital sogial media as a mean to grow. To define people WEAK because you make a decision to cut ties......for a multitude of reasons seemed a bit provocatory.
I’ve only ever blocked two people in my life. I’m 61
As soon as an ad hominem attack on me, I do two things. I call them an asshole, and then block. I smile afterwards…
I am blocked daily by sniveling little democratic bitches! Have a great day!
I block those who are discourteous. They resort to shouting in all caps and name calling and all sorts of negativity. Anyone who disagrees with me but is courteous, I am happy to dialogue with. However I don't suffer fools who insist on defending TPTB when those powers intend to mislead and obfuscate. They are either intentional (maybe paid) trolls, or too indoctrinated to think for themselves.
There are many topics I have researched in depth. Take viruses and virology for example. There are no viruses (they have never been isolated), and virology is pseudoscience. Anyone who argues in favor of virology and taking injections to save humanity from phony pandemics has not done their due own diligence. They put their children and families in danger of food allergies, autism, autoimmune diseases, cancers and a whole host of other maladies, including death. I don't block them if they appear to be sincere, as I feel a duty to warn my fellow man about what is going on. But I can detect when someone is not being sincere as they tend to show their hand one way or another.
If you want to know how we came to have the medicine we have today I recommend reading Murder by Injection by Eustace Mullins. https://archive.org/details/murder-by-injection-eustace-mullins_202301
One topic if you talk truthfully about will certainly get you blocked, or even cancelled on social media. That topic is the Holocaust. We have been indoctrinated with books, movies, photographs, museums and eyewitness accounts of the gassing of Jews in "death" camps like Auschwitz. The number 6 million of the Holocaust cannot be questioned by law in many European nations and elsewhere. If the Holocaust was a true event, why can't it be questioned? Why has no one ever provided any scientific, forensic evidence for the event?
I prefer questions that can't be answered vs answers that can't be questioned. Truth does not fear investigation. When any "truth" is protected by law, red flags should go up all over the place.
One of my flaws, if you can call it that, is I insist on knowing truth. I work hard on truth discovery. I know what the authorities positions are, I was educated at a University. I also have experience in the US Army, so I am well versed in the practice of indoctrination from the receiving end. Knowing the official positions, I actively seek alternative truths that resonate with me.
I will state this: Anyone who has not questioned their education has not started on their path of self discovery. For anyone who wants to get started, I recommend John Taylor Gatto's first book Dumbing Us Down. John has other books on offer on the topic, and there are many of his lectures available on YouTube. John discovered the problems with schooling while a teacher in the NY public school system. In fact he was awarded Teacher Of The Year 5 times before he came out speaking against what he was doing in public school classrooms.
One last point. If I have an argument with someone on social media, and that someone insists on trying to discredit an author I present, and refuses to discuss what is in the author's book, I know that person is disingenuous. That person deserves to be blocked as his intent is not in a search for truth, but in defending his ignorant position.