There’s someone you disagree with

 

That someone can also be very arrogant about it

In which case it will really fucking annoy you

 

It will annoy you much much more if you yourself are very very confident that they are wrong and you are right

 

Then it will really really annoy you if they appear to be “getting away” with this insulting ignorance, delusion, confusion

 

And then it will really annoy you if others also think they are quite right

Maybe they also think you are quite wrong

But in this case — you just put others in that “group you disagree with” — and above steps apply — just to the whole group

 

Now

Some people are “innocently wrong”, if you will

They just say “I really don’t know, but I feel like…”

You may still facepalm yourself, but you will fail to get angry with them

Especially if they show you respect

 

Then some people are “confidently wrong”,

Loud and obnoxious and ridiculous and disdainful and even hateful and loathsome

And they hate your guts

And hold you in sheer contempt

And scoff at you

 

Now,

here’s where it gets interesting, when you ask yourself:

 

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM?

Is being wrong the problem?

Is being arrogant and disrespectful the problem?

 

Obviously being wrong is a problem

Except the fuck can you do about it?

If someone asked you a question about physics — whatever you answer will most likely be wrong. You have no clue about quantum mechanics

You won’t have a clue about quantum mechanics. It’s almost rational for you to be ignorant about quantum mechanics, unless you’re a physicist.

But you’re still wrong, if you are to try to answer the question, with anything else but “I don’t know”

 

Is this so wrong that you’re wrong?

Obviously we’re ignorant, deal with it

 

What about being ARROGANT?

Well predominately, being arrogant is just stupid

The true meaning of arrogance is epistemic arrogance

It means you think you know more than you do

This is just stupid. It means your understanding is miscalibrated

Pragmatically: it causes you to make mistakes

You act overconfidently

But like I said: it’s plain inferior Bayesian calibration, resulting in you being plainly wrong more often than necessary

 

The problem with “arrogance vs modesty” is that you’ll be called arrogant anyway, even if you’re right

Because others don’t know that you’re right, or if you’re right

Or if you paid your dues

Or if your honesty and directness towards them is your innocence or your attitude

 

What about mockery?

What about hostility?

Well those two are not exactly virtuous for a reason

Again, you can’t love everyone

But you can show them respect

Can you never have fun, though?

I suppose there is no reason for you to not enjoy your amusing observations about the ignorance of others

I suppose there is also no reason to humiliate others

Unless you’re playing the debating game

…I always said debating was a stupid game

 

INDEED

What follows is that,

WE ARE IGNORANT, PERIOD

And then we’re NOT EXACTLY GRACEFUL ABOUT IT

And the world can get worse, it doesn’t necessarily have to get better

And the best you can do is be the one who’s graceful

A little less ignorant

And doing the best for yourself

With ZERO desire to ever “stick it” to anyone

With ZERO desire to be seen as being right

With ZERO desire to convince anybody

With ZERO desire to be approved of, respected, regarded

AND ZERO desire to be seen as not needing approval, respect, regard

EVEN THOUGH it is human

But your first loyalty is to yourself as a private individual,

And your standing as a public persona is secondary

And ironically when you’re a graceful nobody — you’re far more loved and contributing far more love — than those dying on their stupid fucking hill

Your hill is not not-stupid

If it wasn’t — you’d argue for it gracefully

You’d probably demonstrate its superiority or righteousness through action

Not through even a tincture of antagonism