Phil Elmore: Individual Authoring Services

Weak Minds and Weak Ideas, Part 1:
Online Debate, Intellectual Honesty, and Emotional Fortitude

Pondering the nature of political and philosophical debate that occurs online, it struck me just how differently people perceive the same environments in which debate occurs. Some find the experience relaxing; some find it irritating; others find it enjoyable; still others find it stressful -- and distressing.

What is the difference? What quality separates the experiences of those who participate in online discussion on contentious issues?

I've heard it said that there are two kinds of people online -- people who think there are two kinds of people, and people who don't. The former, however, could easily divide online debate participants into two categories: those whose philosophies are generally consistent, whose arguments are well-argued, whose opinions are well-reasoned... and those whose ideas are weak, whose philosophies are conflicted, whose arguments are not compelling.

Those who find themselves in the latter category all too often become enmeshed in rhetorical battles with which they are emotionally and intellectually ill-prepared to cope. What is amusing -- perhaps ironic -- about this is that while plenty of ad hominem abuse and empty rancor exists on the Internet, it is seldom vulgarity of this type that draws the loudest cries from intellectual weaklings.

No, those incapable of defending their ideas, uncomfortable with confronting their philosophies, inconsolable when challenged on their politics, squeal most loudly when confronted with strongly argued and rationally constructed opinions. In the online world, we are divorced from our bodies; we are incorporeal, fleeting text spurting from a cathode ray tube. In this medium, each individual is only as powerful as the might of his or her words. Only the structure, content, and presentation of thought has any weight here.

In this online arena of ideas, I have seen what I hope is every conceivable permutation of this concept. I have seen foreigners lashing out in anger at the United States, embarassing themselves and their puny nations with their petulant raving. I have seen reasonably intelligent individuals transform into (one presumes) red-faced, spitting maniacs, consumed by rage and frustration when confronted with opinions they do not like, opinions they cannot seem to refute. Worse still, I have seen debate participants who fall to pieces when confronted with confidently and rationally espoused dissenting ideas -- for some people simply cannot tolerate in others the egregious sin of failure to be convinced by the wisdom and insight they believe they possess.

This is a wonderful medium in which to discuss ideas -- because only ideas can be transmitted in text. All else is extraneous noise. If, in the course of an online debate, you feel oppressed, depressed, bullied, dominated, or otherwise pushed around, you have a decision to make. You can examine, critically and ruthlessly, the ideas you espouse, strengthening your arguments rationally and returning to the arena of debate more prepared than you were before.

You may also decide -- perhaps to your benefit -- that such a venue is not for you; you can choose to avoid an environment for which you lack the necessary intellectual courage and emotional fortitude. In all cases, however, the lack is yours and yours alone. You are responsible for the strength and the weakness of your ideas and your ideals.

You are the captain of your soul. The rocks ahead are sharp. Watch vigilantly.

Steer wisely.