That is what I mean when I write that an etiquette - an agreed set of standards of online behaviour that one ought to abide by - has yet to evolve, or develop, for people who choose to participate in the online space.
The tech revolution is so recent - and so transformative - that we are still working out ways of coping with it.
Appropriate behaviour and conduct online will come - as, for example, the rules of the road developed after the invention of the internal combustion engine and the automobile, in some instances requiring regulation, and - for the most part - they are adhered to - as we learn to deal with the challenges of the online world.
Plans do or do not work, which is why plans always work. Similarly, appropriate behavior and conduct will or will not come, hence, it will always come.
What I am trying to say is that someone’s inappropriate behavior is how that person behaves appropriately, and vice versa. I say this because everything exist at the same point, though our minds present both sides of the same coin in turn, which deludes man into believing they’re “two” and separate. Duality however is illusory, which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It means it does exist, but it does not exist in the manner our conditioned minds believes it exist. Inappropriate behavior is minimal appropriate behavior, but nevertheless appropriate behavior, and vice versa, which means appropriate is as inappropriate as inappropriate is, and inappropriate is as appropriate as appropriate is, their difference only being a matter of more or less.
Although I cannot say I never disagree with others or that dealing with others is never a challenge for me, my understanding of the mind presenting me with the illusory dualities of right and wrong, normal and abnormal, appropriate and inappropriate etc. is that life is just diverse and varied, albeit illusory.
Attack the argument, rather than the person;
You seem to overlook that man’s mind is conditioned to make man think that thoughts are life. In fact, he identifies with his thoughts; he thinks he is what he thinks he is. What I understand for a fact however is that both life and man’s true nature are thoughtless.
By dividing the indivisible, our minds present us with a myriad of illusory separations, one of them being the separation between the argument (thought) and the person (thinker). But that separation doesn’t stop men and women who believe thoughts are life not at all from believing they are attacked when their thoughts are attacked. To them you can say as much as you want that you only believe
their ideas are stupid, but deep down they will believe that you believe
they are stupid.
The fact that people can and do easily think they are attacked by others who in turn think they only attack the person’s argument, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it can be helpful when people are careful not to attack the person but only the argument. The fundamental problem with discussions becoming “toxic” however is not a lack of social or communication skills or evolved etiquettes, but people being unaware of themselves being strongly identified with their thoughts as beliefs.
The separation between argument and person however is real for those who’ve realized their true nature; they will never believe and cannot believe either they’re are attacked when their thoughts are attacked because they understand that thoughts cannot define life or them. Hence, they remain harmonious, come what may.
Because I agree. There is a freedom about not having a total of those likes there, despite their dopamine hits. I would vote to remove it if given the option. But it probably would go against making Macrumors $ and I'm sure more than a few members would be sad/upset about it. lol.
