Admit it. When you drive by an accident, you can't resist slowing down and looking. It's just something that seems to be hard wired into us. We are drawn to drama and conflict.
When I read the paper today, I saw the rumored break up of recent Oscar winning leading actress Sandra Bullock and Jesse James caused by tattoo model Michelle "Bombshell" McGee. What did I do, I Googled it along with thousands or millions of others.
When I heard about the brouhaha on 2p2 a few days ago regarding Nick StoxPoker Grudzien and CR, I couldn't help but follow along as things unfolded. Somewhere in the 87 pages and 1300 replies, there is even one little passing mention of Zimba at CR that AceCR9 posted. Thanks for my likely first ever mention ever on that site...LOL
There is one big difference to be found amongst people in these scenarios. There are those who prefer to be a part of the conflict and others who prefer to gawk from afar. Some people seem to crave the conflict in their lives. It somehow makes them feel more alive.
It is particularly evident when you visit an online forum. The conflict junkies seem to gain some kind of fulfillment from expressing their thoughts. They feel compelled to share their opinion, especially if they disagree with anything stated. Unfortunately, it rarely ends with their sharing a different perspective, but becomes a personal attack. Invariably, they insist that you are essentially an idiot for having an opinion different from their own. Their goal is to beat you down and prevail. They aren't looking for compromise or a coming together of opposing minds. Either side of the argument is steadfast.
While I'll admit my role as the drive-by gawker of conflict, I've never understood that element about human nature that I call conflict junkies. Call me strange, but my inner pacifist is strong. I look for compromise and conciliation first, conflict and argument as a last resort. I try to appreciate a different perspective or at least respect the right to air your different viewpoint. It's not that I don't have strong opinions or feel that I'm right in having them for myself, but I feel equally that it doesn't have to be shared by everyone else.
I will freely offer my input if requested or encouraged, but I'll usually refrain if I sense it won't be heard. What is right for me, isn't necessarily right for you. We don't have to share every same belief or opinion. Even on a pure theoretical debate stage, the semantics of language and the subjectivity of claimed fact and truth often undermine any debate's meaningfulness. Everyone will be coming from a different perspective and frame it with a different context. So can't we agree to disagree? If it is important, can we negotiate some compromise solution?
I was asked why I didn't contribute anything to the Stox/CR debate on the 2p2 forums. What good would it do? Yes, I was an active part of CR in the early days. Yes, I know who the former disgruntled employee who vented in the debate was. Yes, I could contribute something to the discussion, both good and bad, but for what end goal? I have no agenda. The direct parties involved can speak for themselves. They need to be responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, it often takes forum conflict junkie zealots to unmask those that resist the urge to be transparent.
I'm a firm believer in some sort of karma. I will be answerable for my choices. So will they. Let me not be the first to throw a stone. While I am guilty of gawking at the drama as I drive by, I never have had the desire to be the one in conflict. Peace out!