Core Value: I'm here to be helpful
Corollary: I'm not here to argue with strangers on the Internet
I often say my guiding principle is that “I’m here to be helpful, not to argue with strangers on the Internet.” I adopted this principle almost a decade ago (and probably tried to live it for years before I articulated it).
Yes, I came up with this because arguing about politics was becoming a problem for me. Not just in the time sunk, but in the toll on my mental health. Now, I know how to debate. I’m pretty good at it. I took debate (and competed) in high school. I was a political blogger in the early 00s. I’ve worked with arrogant engineers. I can debate. The question is should I debate?
And the answer, at least here in these Internet streets, is usually no. It is not my ministry, as I like to say. I am not suited for Internet arguments for two very good reasons:
The Internet of civil requests to “Cite!” is long-gone. I like to research and provide data and sources to validate the thing I believe. Nobody cares. I’m not changing anyone’s mind with my cites, and whenever I ask for a cite “so I can learn more about this position of yours” there is almost never a cite forthcoming.
There seem to be people who find the debate itself to be a game, even when the subject is serious. They enjoy the parry and thrust. They enjoy scoring the points and racking up a win. I just get really upset that someone could be ill-informed or heartless or ahistorical in their perspective, and I really REALLY take that to heart.
I didn’t say it was healthy.
I was reminded of this today when someone was wrong on the Internet. They weren’t just wrong; they were crass and insulting about something I care about. Naturally I felt the need to respond with facts and logic. I think it’s fair to give people the benefit of the doubt for one exchange. But as so often happens, this person doubled down. And because they doubled down and added one more insult…they betrayed their true lack of knowledge on the subject. They said something that was objectively the statement of an outsider on the topic at hand.
Oh, did I write an excellent rebuttal. I exercised my sarcasm muscle and told them surely they didn’t mean [thing they said] because that wasn’t at all what they were trying to say. No, they must have meant [the correct reference], so the next time they decided to go down this path, at least they’d get the reference right. You know, just me being helpful.
I wrote it all out. And then I deleted without posting because see above. I am not on this planet to argue with strangers on the Internet (even with sarcastic helpfulness). And yes. It did take fortitude. I’m patting myself on the back right now. But was definitely the right thing to do.
Have you ever codified when and how you will engage in discourse online, and when you will not? Might it be helpful for you to do so? Or are you all zen-like masters of your emotional responses and most pedantic tendencies? I’m dying to know.
What else is going on?
Optionality
The big news over at Optionality is that we’ve introduced a new benefit for Premium members. The WisdomExchange (or WE!) program is a by-us-for-us collective of fellow Premium members offering digestible, practical topics designed to help us all upskill, upgrade, and level up…all at an exclusive, heavily discounted rate available only to Optionality. Learn more details here.
Meanwhile, the end to early adopter Premium Membership pricing has now been set for midnight Monday September 2nd, so if you’ve been considering upgrading or subscribing to premium membership, now’s the time to get it for $299/year.
Come join us and give and get wisdom within our community.
A few other items of note:
The Premium member working group focused on bringing a book to life has finally lit a fire under my butt to finish my book proposal for book #2. The combination of accountability and willing and eager reviewers of my in-progress draft is pushing me over the edge I’ve been procrastinating in front of FOR MONTHS. We can do the same for you :)
We continue to feature guest content from Premium members, like this Deep Dive from Betsy Tong on how she helps people use AI tools to figure out their second or third acts in life. (And yes, she’s offering AI assistance as part of our WisdomExchange.) Or this newsletter about how member Noor Rahman quit lawyering to become a Science Fiction author!
We decided to switch our biweekly audio conversation about what’s in the news around the future of work from a Premium piece of content to a video conversation open to all, so check out Conversationality.
Here’s an excerpt from last week’s:
That’s it for today. Until next time, please leave a comment and let me know your thoughts on any or all of the above. This is basically my blog now! And as always, I appreciate a share of Optionality and this newsletter.
Thanks for reading!
-E
The only way to engage with opposing viewpoints, in person, one to one, and get to the root of what we value. At least that’s what I’ve found over time. Working in the union world that happens a lot!
Years ago I heard a great metaphor that has stuck with me. How do you get a dog to give up a bone? You can grab the other end, and pull and the dog will tug at their end... the dog might even bite you. The way to get a dog to drop a bone is to put down a juicy steak. That dog will lose all interest in that bone.
In the same way, it is pointless to argue with someone who is not able to listen to you. They are so focused on their argument and the tug and pull just becomes a game for them. All I can really do to truly impact lives is to exhibit love. Not play their game. Love won't stop a bullet, but it is really powerful. Consistent kindness and respect (for yourself and others) is really hard to argue with. And it can effectively show some people that they are being obnoxious. (yes, totally passive aggressive... but it can be really useful)