mike on Nostr: So for only the second time on NOSTR I got in to the closest thing to a twitter flame ...

So for only the second time on NOSTR I got in to the closest thing to a twitter flame war yesterday. It was concerning EVs of which I am knowledgeable in the same way we all understand Bitcoin.

The petrol head gave the same type of very uninformed knee jerk responses to EVs that normies give about Bitcoin and I gave detailed explanations as to why they were misinformed and the statements they were making were untrue.

After a few parrys, the petrol head started degenerating to personal insults. Surprisingly, I didn’t have any issue with this, in fact I felt bad for them, soI took their insults and doubled down on myself to try to make them feel better. Of course this was unthinkable for them and so the exchange ended abruptly.

I felt the same degree of self sovereignty over this subject as I do over Bitcoin, however, after reflecting on the situation, despite convincingly winning every argument, I had not convinced my sparring partner of anything, they fell into the abyss of self loathing and doubt and emotion prevented them from developing their knowledge or understanding.

I now realise the parallels with Bitcoin, we come across as evangelists and extremely smug ones at that, showing our fiat friends how little they have thought or considered the arguments they are proposing. This has the same affect, they don’t see the complexity or depth of what we are explaining, but instead get drawn into their own insecurities and self loathing.

So I was wondering, how we adapt our rhetoric to prevent this path. Is that even possible or does the adage of “you can lead a horse to water” apply and we have to wait for normies to see the path before them.

I wonder if anybody here has evolved thought on this or has found ways to avoid the “monsters from the id”?