[southernplaces7]

You're also a human being with agency and the ability to think and decide how to act towards others, and why. Not behaving like a total trolling, raging adolescent has nothing to do with ignoring the harsher edges of the world and society. You can still firmly defend X or Y argument, while making it as if you were speaking in person to the people on the other end.

[Intralexical]

It's wild how low-empathy humans can get simultaneously offended and unironically self-righteous when you basically tell them something as simple as "Be nice" or "Try not to hurt people".

…I see that the top-level comment has been edited to be less aggressive, though. Previously it said something to the effect of "If you can't handle that, you have no business being on today's Internet".

[firstbabylonian]

Yes, I edited the original comment, because I realised that you took offence in it and thought that I was addressing "you" — or the OP — specifically. It was a hyperbolic statement. Does the edit make it clear?

My argument is simple: the internet today is very broad, and humanity — let's face it — on the whole is not very nice. It's admirable to try to create pockets of positivity in it anyway. I simply want to highlight that it is futile, and maybe a more realist perspective is what we actually need to find a way forward.

[Intralexical]

> It's admirable to try to create pockets of positivity in it anyway. I simply want to highlight that it is futile, and maybe a more realist perspective is what we actually need to find a way forward.

The issue I take with that is that as the problem is entirely social in nature, the perception of futility is also a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[firstbabylonian]

It’s also something that has been historically true over and over, sadly. All ‘nice’ pacifist societies ended up getting wiped out or subjugated by their uncaring neighbours. Sustainable niceness does not exist. I wonder if we should accept this fact rather than continue to fight it.

[Intralexical]

You say, after the the last thirty years have probably been the safest, most peaceful, most free, and most human-rights-respecting time period in all of human history for the world at large. And, I assume, you probably say while living in a liberal democracy that has specifically outlived multiple oppressive totalitarian regimes which have kept trying to dominate the world.

I think that's an easy bias to fall for, but also not actually true. If it were true, the world would only ever monotonically get more and more violent over time, until we lived in some kind of exaggerated parody of an apocalypse slasher film, which is not the case.

Sustainable naïve niceness does not exist as the norm. It is still possible to be kind as a default without immediately rolling over for anybody who does not share such values, even if you sometimes have to do so by reciprocating hostility where it is encountered.

Cruelty and conflict are ultimately destructive forces, wasting goodwill, physical resources, and cooperative potential. The social equilibrium may not bend towards kindness as sharply as we would like sometimes, but it certainly isn't a straight drop to apathy and cynicism either. Although perceiving and portraying something as inevitable can go a long way to rationalizing it, or to trying to justify giving up.

[firstbabylonian]

Thank you for this thoughtful response.