BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE



A WRITER'S JOB IS TO TELL READERS WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR

I don’t profess to be either the owner, or arbiter, of truth. I’m a seeker of truth, as oppose to a seeker of validation. And I don’t see the internet as a social club. I view it as an educational tool, a place to educate, and to be educated. So writing is not a competitive event for me, nor is it a social activity where I feel obliged to either stroke egos, or tell people what makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. I avoid such places and activities both online, and in the real world. They’re a waste of time, and they’re only good for reinforcing the often erroneous beliefs of the people who congregate there. I call them FOXholes.
.
So I’m not going to waste my time writing just to tell people what they WANT to hear. If I’m going to write, I’m going to write about what I think people NEED to hear, and if they are mature adults, they should understand and appreciate that. If they’re not, I simply dismiss them as not the kind of people I’m interested in communicating with in the first place. Why try to have a discussion with people whose minds are closed to ideas that differ from their own? Such people have already made up their minds about what they want to believe, so truth, new facts, and even reality, are meaningless to them. So what’s the point of a discussion? There isn’t one.
.
I’ve found over the years that you can pick and choose who you want to associate with in the real world, but on the internet that’s not always so easy. So I’ve found an easy solution for that, and maybe others might want to adopt it. When I find that a person online has nothing of value to offer, or doesn’t fit the profile of the kind of person that I’m trying to get through to, I simply ignore that person. The minute I see the person’s name I simply skip over it and move on. That way, it’s like the person’s not even there. And if the person tries to force themselves upon me, as many such people tend to do, I simply block them. If everyone did that, trolls would eventually find themselves with only one another to troll. They’d be relegated to a troll’s Heaven.
.
I received a comment from one lady (at least, I’m assuming it was a female) that said something to the effect that every since I betrayed a thought that she didn’t agree with that she’d lost all respect for anything I had to say. It later became obvious that my opinion was offensive to her more liberated feminist views. I had written an article that was intended to give women insight into how most men think. I considered it a very innocuous article, since it was based on what we men have routinely discussed among ourselves since the time we were little boys. It described my observation of how most men categorize women. I pointed out that in my opinion most men place women in one of three categories: 1). Easy - convenient and nice to have around when there’s no one else to have sex with, but we have very little respect for. 2). Friends with benefits - women who we like and respect, but whether or not we'd marry them is a question mark. Or 3). Women who are generally low-key and very protective of their sexuality - or, the kind of women that most men are looking for in a wife, hence, the phrase, "my lady."
.
Women don't like hearing that - especially feminists - because they have a vested interest in believing that men are taking them seriously, and that their newfound sexual liberation isn't being used against them. But the fact is, due to the fact that men have been innately wired to be morally corrupt, all's-fair-in-love-and-war, sexual predators by nature (probably to ensure the perpetuation of the species), we are indeed undeniably manipulative of the newfound sexual liberation of women. It plays right into our lustful hands. But that said, it's grossly illogical to lash out at a writer for brazenly reporting the blatant truth. He didn't create the situation, nor is he promoting it, he's merely doing his job, reporting the facts. So that clearly demonstrates that craving the comfort of an ideological echo chamber is a human characteristic, and not merely a conservative affliction. That's why it's incumbent upon writers to never cater to this tendency of human nature.
.
The lady was highly offended, and said that as a result, she had lost respect for anything I had to say. I pointed out to her that while I was sorry that she felt that way, I could certainly understand it. So I simply won’t expect to see her name commenting on any of the blogs that I submitted in the future. I let her know that while I was sure I’d miss her input, I wasn’t there to win friends and fans, and I was certainly not there just to reinforce what she wanted to believe. I was there to engage in serious discussions with serious-minded and objective people who are capable of intellectual detachment. Thus, for my purpose, people who are emotional and allow their egos to get all caught up in a discussion are a distraction.  
.
So if a person doesn’t like what I have to say, it’s not necessary for them to throw tantrums and spitballs - that’s the way children behave. Such people need to realize that they don’t live in this world alone, and the rest of the world don’t have an obligation to cater to views that make them feel good. There are others who may also disagree with me, but may want to challenge my views in a more detached and intellectual fashion. I welcome such people, because they are the ones who give the internet the potential for being the most powerful educational tool that man has ever known, and more than once, individuals of this caliber have caused me to reexamine my views, and even reverse them.
.
But my opinion is my opinion, so if it’s such an intolerable assault on what an individual wants to believe, they should simply vote with their feet, and I’ll get the point. And what’s most ironic about it is, more often than not, these tend to be the very people running around with their hair on fire, wanting to know what’s wrong with the world, and why people are so dumb.
.
Well, here’s another "why." Why distract others who are online to discuss issues, explore ideas, and who are genuinely seeking mutual growth, with inane side issues and false assumptions regarding the motivations of the writer. If you feel that the writer has a hidden agenda, do something constructive. Write an article of your own with an opposing view, laying out the issues that you feel are relevant - some of my best articles have started out that way. That way you’re ADDING to the body of knowledge, instead of simply being a distraction. 
.
Life is simple. Why make it complicated?
.
Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
[email protected]
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content