Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

Having spent two decades or more in the sobriety community, my perspective is that I'm not convinced there's a 'real' person. There's the person at their lowest; the person at their highest; the person where there are no consequences; the person where there are plenty of consequences; the person who's too stoned to recognize that actions have consequences; the person just coming out of surgery and basic inhibitions are entirely absent and it's not clear that fear of consequences is the gatekeeper that's been removed; the person who just underwent actual torture and did/said what they were convinced nothing could make them do. Is one or the other more 'the real' them? I'm definitively not sure.
That's a very old philosophy question. I've read a few different answers, but I think David Hume has the answer I like best.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


... for the most part, I think that the people here suffer from what I call variola stultorum anonymorum, which seems to afflict the internet. In other words, if you meet them at a gaming table, they are likely to be kind, inclusive, open-minded, tolerant, curious, and willing to try all sorts of games and generally fun to play with.

Get them behind a keyboard, however, and they will retreat to the smallest hill of an extreme preference and happily die defending it, with extreme rhetoric and anger while mocking any and all perceived enemies ... and possibly allies.
Picture with moderately NSFW text on it:
1760640154784.png
 

I am sure that anonymity is overrated as a source of trouble. Look at Facebook. Many many people gladly say horrible things with their names attached.

As for the real person, I love the discussion of that by historian Eric Foner in the introduction to his book The Fiery Trial, which is about Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery. They changed throughout his adult life, and he was always sincere in his search for truth. So…were his ideas in the 1830s more real, or less real, than his various stands in the ‘40:s, ‘50s, or ‘60s? He changed policies on the basis of changed views during the American Civil Wat - did he become more (or less) real along the way? No. He was real throughout.
 

I am sure that anonymity is overrated as a source of trouble. Look at Facebook. Many many people gladly say horrible things with their names attached.

As for the real person, I love the discussion of that by historian Eric Foner in the introduction to his book The Fiery Trial, which is about Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery. They changed throughout his adult life, and he was always sincere in his search for truth. So…were his ideas in the 1830s more real, or less real, than his various stands in the ‘40:s, ‘50s, or ‘60s? He changed policies on the basis of changed views during the American Civil Wat - did he become more (or less) real along the way? No. He was real throughout.
In the case of Facebook the medium and the echo chamber of "friends" is the 'mask.'

Sure, people's vies can evolve, but it's a different thing when the person will flip a mental switch on their behaviour simply because, in one situation, they are in danger of being fed their teeth if they behave in the same manner as they do when anonymous.
 

As for the real person, I love the discussion of that by historian Eric Foner in the introduction to his book The Fiery Trial, which is about Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery. They changed throughout his adult life, and he was always sincere in his search for truth. So…were his ideas in the 1830s more real, or less real, than his various stands in the ‘40:s, ‘50s, or ‘60s? He changed policies on the basis of changed views during the American Civil Wat - did he become more (or less) real along the way? No. He was real throughout.

I was real, and I was spectacular!
-Abraham Lincoln, the Master of His Domain
 





Remove ads

Top