Social media problem: “If you dislike me so much, why are you watching/reading?”

On social media (and media, to be fair) we often wonder the motivations of people who seemingly hate “everything” you do, but they’re still there, begging for your acknowledgment for the fact they’re offended or they don’t like what you’re doing. This is done by people who are used to pleasant social conversations only. There are people who ONLY EVER interact on a superficial, non-intellectual, non-philosophical level “in public”.

They fully believe that what is said out loud should be aimed to be palatable to everyone present. They feel the ONLY PEOPLE you speak to honestly is your own family and closest, most trusted friends. Whether THEY want to hear about it or not. Therefore, to them, a person who speaks honestly on social media must be doing it simply because they either HAVE no family or their family has abandoned them.

People with a philosophical mind, however, aim to ONLY speak the truth. How DEEP that truth goes is another matter and depends on the person they’re speaking to.

The people who dislike you consider you family

There are people who have never gotten used to having disagreements with ANYONE except their immediate family. This makes them think that you’re basically family if you raise controversial, angering issues on your social media. They may feel like they need to rescue you from the life you live, and they’ll do it by telling you what you must do in order to become a part of THEIR family and circle of closest friends. If you ‘bite’ it means you’re interested in joining their tribe… So don’t do it. Never address your enemies directly on social media.

You should be flattered by this attention – up to a point – if someone reacts your content with a “I don’t like you, but I speak to you anyway”, they want to let you know they welcome you into their own circles, as a friend. They view your content as attention-seeking (“I need friends, any friend, all friends”), as they have NO IDEA how to discuss matters as a philosopher or some sort of a truth-seeker, psychologist, a spiritual moralist, life coach, or another type of an intellectual.

These people don’t hear your words, they hear the distress, the interpreted “loneliness” in your voice

Although we all agree on one thing: Your family, friends, and lover(s) are The Most Important People in your life, and without them, your life sucks.

If these connections are missing or lacking, we all feel distressed, lonely, fed up, and depressed. No arguments there.

HOWEVER, even if you WERE looking for friends, that doesn’t mean that you’re willing to make friends with ANYBODY WHO WOULD HAVE YOU – especially if you know you’ve got enough takers to fill a 10-floor hotel with. When a philosopher is making friends, they talk about matters of interest to them. They connect through their ideas, views, morals, and so forth. Non-philosophical people make friends by IGNORING these differences and accepting you REGARDLESS of their difference of opinion. To a philosopher, falser friendships cannot be made than those that rely on the ignorance of opinions and views. (Having said that, we all rely on “deep down” gut instinct; I am sure I can get them join my opinion.)

Prove you’re a friend…

The difference here is, that non-philosophers make friends by DISAGREEMENT: “Look, it doesn’t matter we disagree, I’m still here. I’m prepared to love you regardless of your weirdness and unlikability. You don’t have to try so hard to be loved. I’ll love you even though I don’t like you. Or, I like you and am willing to teach you my ways.” Philosophers make friends by AGREEMENT: “I love the way your mind works. I adore your views. If we disagree, we must first have a discussion that establishes a mutual agreement and mutual ground. Even if we won’t make personal friends, we want to part on the same terms: we seek the truth, agreement that this is the truth. Our mutual goal is to understand this world and each other perfectly.”

Now, the philosopher is trying to find mutual ground. They want to find people who are not completely stupid. Ignoring truth, evidence, logic, and reason is absolute proof of stupidity, which is a disqualifying trait in a potential friend. They need something to agree on, making it harder and harder for the person seeking their friendship to prove that they are DISAGREEABLE (as in reliable friend) as to them. From their perspective, the moment you AGREE with someone is the moment you give up on them and settle for “a formal” relationship instead of friendship.

Giving up

Philosophers know this moment, too, in reverse. When you get into an argument with someone trying to find mutual ground, and eventually, you notice they’re completely rigid in their views and unwilling to be educated, you give up on your hope of making them into a friend and leave them to their misguided views. You feel you’re doing them a disservice, too, by letting them hold onto such views that have no alignment with the truth. (Do not worry, they likely HAVE no real opinion, or they don’t care about it. Philosopher’s concerns are nothing but a battleground to find friends on to them.)

Philosopher: “In order for us to be friends, we must agree X is true.”

Non-philosopher: “In order for us to be friends, you must trust me to stick around even though I don’t agree with you on anything.”

The two modes of making friends are, thus, in a direct, non-solvable collision course.

IF there is a chance of friendship, tell the non-philosopher this

“Look, we cannot be friends unless we find mutual ground. Something we TRUTHFULLY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE as a unit. So we can fight for the same cause. So I can trust you to be my ally in my truth-seeking. Otherwise, you cannot serve my needs as a friend.”

If there is no chance of a friendship, say nothing at all.

Subscribe to get a Daily Message