I have sometimes wondered how my comments are perceived, and now I know. I am not a fan of incivility, although I understand that sometimes disrespectful comments can still have informational value. It just seems to me that the useful information in such comments could have been conveyed civilly, so what is the point of being disrespectful? I find that stuff that engages the amygdala takes resources away from the frontal cortex, where actual progress might be made.
I think NZ stimulates both the amygdala and the frontal cortex. My problem is that if my amygdala isn't stimulated, my eyes sort of glaze over. Maybe this is because I'm low in conscientiousness and can't be bothered to think about most things unless I'm emotionally involved.
I agree with this. If my brain on any level perceives a threat, that must be dealt with, even if it just takes a second, and that takes attention away from what I want to focus on.
How about comments that ask you questions and request that you do more work then you've already done in writing the piece? ;)
Because I would really like some examples of this type of provoking comment from NonZionism. He generally seems pretty reasonable to me, so I'm surprised that you and Hanania experience him as such am irritating thorn. So now here I am asking you for some links instead of taking my own time to scroll through all your comment sections. Which I realize is probably annoying but, hey, never hurts to ask right?
I was going to suggest you paywall more articles, as I did a substack paid subscription purge a few months ago, but then resubbed to hanania because of pay walling some stuff I want to read. But none of your stuff I’ve wanted to read is paywalled and I read you almost as much as hanania.
Since commenting is paywalled on this, ya got me subscribed again that way. However you should still paywall articles like this one that wouldn’t have mass appeal, but are interesting to your non casual followers, so you can get max cash from us.
I can, and do, yell at people on Twitter for free.
I pay for a substack because I want to learn. For me, a controversial substack that's right on 80% of the facts is the worst possible kind. If I'm there to learn, by definition, I don't know the material, and I need to trust the author knows what they're talking about.
That goes double for one where I disagree with the author, because changing your mind is a lot of work, and I don't want to do that based on shoddy information. There's nothing worse than subscribing to a substack and then seeing a piece where you know the author is wrong on the facts, because then you not only paid to be misinformed, but you took time to know less than when you started.
Matt Yglesias runs one of the best substacks because even when you disagree with him, his pieces are extremely informative. I 100% trust his claims are well sourced.
Bad comments (rude, bigoted, misinformed) affect my decision to subscribe, because on a good substack, I also learn a lot from the comments. Bad comments are also just annoying to read.
So while nasty comments may drive engagement, thus making you more money, it may drive away people who spend a lot of money on substacks. Depends on what works for the author, I guess.
I took a look at his substack, and it's a great example of how comments tip me over the edge of not paying for a sub.
The best comment threads are civil and substantive, because that means there's no ego involved, and people will be willing to concede if others make good points. You can trust people are trying to say useful things.
I, personally, would say I find NZ's comments like the ones on Hanania, substantive, but also really bad, because it's clear egos/core values are involved, and people will argue misleadingly to protect those. If I'm following along, I can't tell which person angrily debating the papal masturbation scandal of 1551 has the best take. The best I can do is mentally note that something important happened in 1551 and maybe I'll see something about that somewhere else.
Where I agree with you is that if someone smart insults me substantively, then I'll get really worked up, and will go to a lot of trouble to research and strengthen my position, because I'd die if I were ever proved wrong on the internet. So that makes *me* smarter. But it's at the expense of other people who at minimum have to scroll past the fight.
I have sometimes wondered how my comments are perceived, and now I know. I am not a fan of incivility, although I understand that sometimes disrespectful comments can still have informational value. It just seems to me that the useful information in such comments could have been conveyed civilly, so what is the point of being disrespectful? I find that stuff that engages the amygdala takes resources away from the frontal cortex, where actual progress might be made.
I think NZ stimulates both the amygdala and the frontal cortex. My problem is that if my amygdala isn't stimulated, my eyes sort of glaze over. Maybe this is because I'm low in conscientiousness and can't be bothered to think about most things unless I'm emotionally involved.
I agree with this. If my brain on any level perceives a threat, that must be dealt with, even if it just takes a second, and that takes attention away from what I want to focus on.
How about comments that ask you questions and request that you do more work then you've already done in writing the piece? ;)
Because I would really like some examples of this type of provoking comment from NonZionism. He generally seems pretty reasonable to me, so I'm surprised that you and Hanania experience him as such am irritating thorn. So now here I am asking you for some links instead of taking my own time to scroll through all your comment sections. Which I realize is probably annoying but, hey, never hurts to ask right?
Is it wrong that I love questions with emojis at the end? ;)
Hanania quotes NZ quite thoroughly in the article I link.
Love the J-on-J action
I was going to suggest you paywall more articles, as I did a substack paid subscription purge a few months ago, but then resubbed to hanania because of pay walling some stuff I want to read. But none of your stuff I’ve wanted to read is paywalled and I read you almost as much as hanania.
Since commenting is paywalled on this, ya got me subscribed again that way. However you should still paywall articles like this one that wouldn’t have mass appeal, but are interesting to your non casual followers, so you can get max cash from us.
I can, and do, yell at people on Twitter for free.
I pay for a substack because I want to learn. For me, a controversial substack that's right on 80% of the facts is the worst possible kind. If I'm there to learn, by definition, I don't know the material, and I need to trust the author knows what they're talking about.
That goes double for one where I disagree with the author, because changing your mind is a lot of work, and I don't want to do that based on shoddy information. There's nothing worse than subscribing to a substack and then seeing a piece where you know the author is wrong on the facts, because then you not only paid to be misinformed, but you took time to know less than when you started.
Matt Yglesias runs one of the best substacks because even when you disagree with him, his pieces are extremely informative. I 100% trust his claims are well sourced.
Bad comments (rude, bigoted, misinformed) affect my decision to subscribe, because on a good substack, I also learn a lot from the comments. Bad comments are also just annoying to read.
So while nasty comments may drive engagement, thus making you more money, it may drive away people who spend a lot of money on substacks. Depends on what works for the author, I guess.
I wouldn't call NZ nasty, but I would call him contentious.
I took a look at his substack, and it's a great example of how comments tip me over the edge of not paying for a sub.
The best comment threads are civil and substantive, because that means there's no ego involved, and people will be willing to concede if others make good points. You can trust people are trying to say useful things.
I, personally, would say I find NZ's comments like the ones on Hanania, substantive, but also really bad, because it's clear egos/core values are involved, and people will argue misleadingly to protect those. If I'm following along, I can't tell which person angrily debating the papal masturbation scandal of 1551 has the best take. The best I can do is mentally note that something important happened in 1551 and maybe I'll see something about that somewhere else.
Where I agree with you is that if someone smart insults me substantively, then I'll get really worked up, and will go to a lot of trouble to research and strengthen my position, because I'd die if I were ever proved wrong on the internet. So that makes *me* smarter. But it's at the expense of other people who at minimum have to scroll past the fight.