>"Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?"
Sure, but if you want to be able to do it more than once you need to be...
1.) Useful enough to someone that the people you offend or scare can't simply discard or destroy you.
2.) Content with a count of friends that hovers near and will almost certainly reach 0 repeatedly.
3.) Prepared to deal with people who feel righteous glee in taking the most extreme misinterpretations of your words possible and maliciously applying them to you and yours.
4.) Plastic enough in your thinking that in the face of new evidence you're able accept not just that you were wrong, but that you've hurt and alienated people over things you have now reversed on.
Related to this, one thing I find interesting is that I actually have to filter myself far more when speaking anonymously online than I do in person.
I get the impression that online communications tend to be scored more often than understood. It's up or down, agree or not, run across a hot-button keyword and idea is instantly categorized and binned as this or that.
Face to face, when you can pair a threatening idea with a calm and friendly face or something which sounds wrong with a visible intelligence people tend to more amenable to understanding.
Sure, but if you want to be able to do it more than once you need to be...
1.) Useful enough to someone that the people you offend or scare can't simply discard or destroy you.
2.) Content with a count of friends that hovers near and will almost certainly reach 0 repeatedly.
3.) Prepared to deal with people who feel righteous glee in taking the most extreme misinterpretations of your words possible and maliciously applying them to you and yours.
4.) Plastic enough in your thinking that in the face of new evidence you're able accept not just that you were wrong, but that you've hurt and alienated people over things you have now reversed on.
Related to this, one thing I find interesting is that I actually have to filter myself far more when speaking anonymously online than I do in person.
I get the impression that online communications tend to be scored more often than understood. It's up or down, agree or not, run across a hot-button keyword and idea is instantly categorized and binned as this or that.
Face to face, when you can pair a threatening idea with a calm and friendly face or something which sounds wrong with a visible intelligence people tend to more amenable to understanding.