@Jonathan_Burke, I hear ya. Just one of many many good pieces of advice in your recent postings, all pro-tips which some participants may choose to consider.
Even though my background and positions are different from yours, I enjoy reading them and learning from them. Generally, I’ve not found them hard to follow. Not at all. And when I’m not quite so certain of their meaning, I have no doubt that I could clarify said ambiguity by taking the time to read the links you’ve provided or by reviewing your prior posts. Sometimes the linked tangent interests me. Sometimes not. But I always appreciate that those explanations are available to me when I choose to pursue them.
@Jonathan_Burke, your explanations and observations in this thread do a good job of contrasting the obvious fact that participants on these forums visit with varied intentions—and that’s fine. Some participants are very earnest in furthering particular agendas. (Again, that’s fine.) And others of us read and contribute here and there and come and go according to what happens to interest us at that particular time. (And that’s fine.) Clearly, the former participants sometimes get frustrated with those of us who are more casual and less “armed and vigilant”. And to be fair: vice versa.
Some are very focused in advancing and defending a particular “side”, and whenever others don’t share that passion for “side-ism”, they may even lash out. No doubt for any given conflict, the eruption could be explained in various ways which may be as nuanced as the contrasts in the two parties involved. Yet, in so many of those cases, one party “demands a fair fight” and the other party simply doesn’t care. I admit to often finding myself in the latter group. Too many of such “debates” forum debates (on a wide variety of discussion websites) are simply rehashes of tiresome exchanges we’ve all watched or engaged a hundred times before. So unless I’m dealing with a brilliant swordsman from whom I may learn something, it’s just not worth working up a sweat. It’s hard to justify the time and energy. And it certainly doesn’t always make for a refreshing and productive use of one’s limited time available for recreational diversions on-line. (I liken it to my daily food calorie ration. If I’m going to expend an entire 500 calories in just one serving of a particular dish, it had better be invested in a delicious, exceptional entree that makes the expenditure well worth the cost. Nobody wants the post-dining regret of blowing 500 calories on the disappointingly mediocre or even the noxious.)
Of course, all of this is little more than common sense. But it is clear that some participants in online discussion forums don’t stop to consider that others may not be as fascinated by their positions as they are. Especially when they regularly taunt, posture, humble-brag, demand—and even foment their conspiracy theories and declare their supremacies. You know the routines: “Anybody who refuses to engage me on this is obviously afraid of me because they can’t defeat my arguments.” and “If you don’t accept my challenge, I will declare myself the victor on the aforementioned date.” One particularly infamous and clownish Young Earth Creationism activist has a website where he has a long list of his hundreds of “debate victories”. It includes every possible opponent from Richard Dawkins to Francis Collins to Hugh Ross. [See Footnote.] Of course, no such debates ever took place. They were all “victory by default forfeit.” The hubris and NPD drips off the webpage.
Back to the immediate sub-thread:
Personally, I am well aware that I hold viewpoints which differ from Jonathan_Burke’s but I’ve not found those differences particularly mysterious, frustrating, nor “opaque”. But if “sides” were extremely important to me—and advancing my own side absolutely essential in every exchange—perhaps I’d feel differently. But as it is, I don’t lose any sleep over Jonathan_Burke’s positions and my hunch is that he doesn’t lose any sleep over mine. I can live with that. But as with all things in life, your mileage may differ.
Communications skills vary widely between individuals. Interpersonal skills vary widely between individuals. Frustrations are sure to follow, perhaps even leading to emotional outbursts, especially if one participant chooses to make a much greater emotional investment in the disagreement than their opponent. Whether personality conflicts are involved or something more fundamental, I generally choose to ignore comments which are self-contradictory, emotional, taunting, and whiny.
Life is too short, as the saying goes. I have my work/research hours and I have my off-hours. When some sub-threads online go into obsessiveness, self-contradiction, double-standards, childish taunting, and generally nonsense. I just ignore them. As a young man, I would usually have jumped in with both hands and both feets, as if every confrontation justified rising to do full battle. I no longer care to do that on every occasion. But whatever others may choose to do is up to them.
FOOTNOTE: Yes, I’m on his list of allegedly vanquished opponents. I received his debate challenge by email some years ago. (An associate bothered to hunt it down in the server archives. Sure enough, the email was there.) Because my grad assistant never bothers me with such rubbish, I never actually saw it, nor any of the similar detritus I receive on a regular basis. So I didn’t realize that I was on the “defeated evil atheist” list until several years later when a colleague brought it to my attention as part of his stand-up routine at my retirement roast party. [As to “defeated evil atheist”, I’ve had my share of defeats in life (my goal of dropping an entire BMI unit in 2015 was a failure, though I came close) and my evil probably ranks me somewhere in the average range of humanity. But the “atheist” part was total nonsense. The YEC activist apparently defines atheist as anyone who doesn’t share 100% of his doctrinal positions so I get lumped into the same category with Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss. I see that a lot among some of the more extreme YECers.]
The preceding has been brought to you by The American Academy of the Mind-Numbingly Obvious and an affiliate-chapter near you.