The Lair

In any social encounter of significance, there are always things that I really shouldn’t say. No matter how pithy or accurate those observations may be, opening my cakehole inevitably leads to recriminations, raised eyebrows and the descent of an uneasy silence on the conversation (also see: dropping a clanger, putting your foot in it, open mouth-insert foot moment etc).

This then, is part of the problem.
Paul Graham »

Nerds are always getting in trouble. They say improper things for the same reason they dress unfashionably and have good ideas: convention has less hold over them.

Of course, this isn’t to say that I have either good ideas or I dress unfashionably. (One of those is definitely true, I have the clothes to prove it) – but I hold an opinion about any number of things, some of which seem to fly against the conventional wisdom, or prevailing fickle winds of online opinion, or whatever you may want to call the consensus. Actually, so does everyone else for their little niche. As Scott Adams observes, everyone is an idiot at something.

Let’s start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

Even calling it consensus is strange. Take politics. An entire country could be overwhelmingly conservative in its political outlook. As these things work, the more liberal (or conservative in the opposite extreme, take your pick) congregate online. That makes voicing a conservative opinion online pretty much a no-no – lest you be shunned, called a rethuglican and all manner of other epithets. Substitute any other political divide as you see fit. I’ve seen this repeated in many different places.

Increasingly, though (and this is where I hop on my soapbox), you see instances where voicing that opinion is unlikely to convince anyone; and may even be counter productive. I personally believe that if an opinion or firmly held view is disturbing, then giving it air to collapse under the weight of its arguments (or not) is better than its suppression. For practical examples, see here or here. Yes, I do read David Irving. I think his Holocaust denial is stupid, but even slanted views are better than no views at all.

And that’s also why, although I don’t do this very often, I think this post is so very worthy of a callout. It’s effigy burningly, religious-fundie outragingly made of 100% awesome. As a followup, it’s hard to top this. It’s the sort of shitstorm that most people wouldn’t willingly call down upon themselves. Part of that reluctance is pragmatic. Most people (probably projecting liberally here) don’t want to deal with the attendant poop that starts getting flung in all directions. Because you just know there will be poop. Where there are monkeys armed with keyboards and an internet connection, there will always be poop.

Conversely, if you insist on writing about a topic that is going to bring out the monkeys; don’t act surprised when the poop gets flung in your general direction. People tend to be rather crazed about this stuff. Having observed even usually mild mannered folk turn into rabid anti-mahindaranilwhatever wolverines in the course of a conversation, I can pretty much vouch for that. Protip: Don’t laugh at their hysteria or correct their facts or figures. Both tempting courses for a snarky nerd, neither will end well. And ignore the (sometimes virtual) flecks of spittle at the corners of their mouth. They’re right. Make soothing noises and back the fuck away. At speed. Or on a blog – nuke their comments from public view, carefully preserving them for later analysis of the crazy. Whatever works for you.

Another part of that reluctance is the hidden fear that you are exposing a possibly deeply hidden bias to the outside world. I mean, I doubt Gordon or Forrest (just a couple of names fresh in my memory. This ain’t a post picking on people in the deep South, y’all) thought they were racists. Why would anyone willingly express a divisive opinion and expect to come out unscathed?

Another truism that can be said in this instance is that “What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”. That’s true. It’s just not the nicest smelling argument when you’re already covered in poop, though.

Of course, there is just the sneaking suspicion that some people call down a poopstorm on themselves because they enjoy that sort of thing. It’s not entirely masochistic. A flamewar generally means lots of eyeballs. Lots of eyeballs mean notoriety of a sort, the emergence of your blog as a talking point (that aphorism about any publicity being good publicity) and sometimes, advertising revenue. Because, you know, when they’re not busy flinging poop or prancing on their keyboard, monkeys click on random stuff. El Goog and other advertisers do not yet discriminate against near-simian clicks and human clicks. It’s all good.

But at the end of the day – occasionally (and the frequency is important, lest you be branded a traffic whoring seeker of poopdrizzle) broaching topics that other people wouldn’t makes things more interesting for all of us. As observed (in a different context):
»

Civil speech and impassioned speech are not opposed and mutually exclusive sets. Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness.

And for conventional politeness, just substitute convention itself.