I’m confused. Am I to assume all sincerity has an ulterior motive then? How can I tell when someone is actually being earnest?
It seems like it depends on the mood you’re in when dealing with the individual. Its easier to be cynical and dismissive when faced with earnestness, rather than consider the possibility that the individual may be sincere. Even if they are being smarmy, being so on-guard all the time will make you come off as just another gloomy pessimist.
Do you just challenge them to provide substance? How much substance is necessary for the person to provide before they pass smarm litmus testing?
It’s also easy to misrepresent yourself online, whether it be on a comment board or email, tweet, whatever. Even the use of a full-stop (or a ‘period’ as my trans-Atlantic friends would call it) can provide tangible context to ones mood… intended or not.
I don’t know where you got that sincerity has an ulterior motive since you either are sincere or not.
This is actually about appealing to a persons higher nature to perform a sleight of hand.
Lets say that somebody takes your wallet, you angrily demand of him/her to give you what is yours, If that person fails to give you your wallet because he finds your tone offensive, then you’ve been duped.
If he gives it to you immediately, yet takes offense and tries to guilt you into something else, then you’re possibly being duped.
Yes you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, but being denied what is due to you BECAUSE you don’t give honey is called being a serf.
My sense of humor leans heavily toward the sardonic. I’ve learned that I have to tone that down online since – lacking tone-of-voice cues – it’s too easily misunderstood as serious rather than satiric, or as directed at an individual rather than an idea. Careful writing can manage some of that, but not everyone has or is willing to exercise that level of writing (or reading) skill, so when in doubt I either avoid it, flag it, or abandon subtlety and go too broad to be taken seriously.
The second half, of course, covers driving trollies, “let’s you and him fight”, and similar provocations of lesser degree. Hopefully most folks will admit if they’re taking a polarized stance that they don’t actually believe simply for the sake of stimulating discussion (I’ve been known to do that, though I don’t think I’ve done it here on BB), but you have to be prepared to deal with the fact that some are just making trouble and recognize when discussion with them is of no benefit except to feed their ego.
