Well, since I haven't been all that active online recently, I'm not quite sure what conflict you're referring to (translation: I have no idea about what's going on, therefore, I'm not mad at you).
There is, however, this strange quality of online relationships and communities that seems to perpetuate the sort of snowballing argument effect I was talking about. I used to think that it was because it was much easier to throw away a frienship that had existed only in text, but now I'm not so sure. So many of my online friends have become extremely close to me, to the point at which I trust them as much as the RL friends I've had since preschool. So what is it about the online world?
I guess I should clarify my own reasons for turning the other cheek. I've confronted this person about the problem before, but to no avail. It's not a bully situation, nor am I playing a victim's role. There's very little left for me to do but to become a nag (I hate nagging), get violent (I hate violence), or just drop it and hope they figure it out on their own. Although a good deal of me says "Rub them in the dirt!", I don't think it would fix the problem, even temporarily. And I know how much asking people to take sides for or against friends ends up hurting. I've been stuck in the middle way too many times.
This is a personal problem. It involves me, and the offender. No one else. Unless I chose to let it grow. I could ask people to take sides, indeed, that's what a public confrontation would do. It might bolster my ego or even my courage if I had people telling me that I'm right. But I don't think that's the right path for me right now. If it were something that hurt more people than myself, I might have chosen differently. If it were something that could have been solved or improved by confrontation, I might have said something.
I agree with Kareila, comparing twink wars and petty personal squabbles to 9/11 and WW2 is a pretty big stretch (in my personal and often fallible opinion). For instance, the reason that Britain and France ignored Hitler for so long is that they were in the middle of a huge crisis of their own: the great Depression. They also weren't over all the other wars they had been fighting recently. They couldn't afford to confront him, they probably would have lost if they had right then. At least, this is what my History prof says. I'll stay away from 9/11 as a measure of self-preservation.
Of course, I'm one of those infuriating (or so I've been told) people who usually refuses to take sides in arguments. I will admit that sometimes it seems like the only way to get out of a situation is to fight. But in many instances, fighting just won't work. In response to your WW2 and 9/11, I'll use the Middle East as an example. People have been fighting for hundreds of years. It's not going to improve. Neither side will budge or listen, just shoot and die. The only way life for them will get better is to stop fighting and let go of the conflict.
Rebuttal...or at least a bit of clearing up...
There is, however, this strange quality of online relationships and communities that seems to perpetuate the sort of snowballing argument effect I was talking about. I used to think that it was because it was much easier to throw away a frienship that had existed only in text, but now I'm not so sure. So many of my online friends have become extremely close to me, to the point at which I trust them as much as the RL friends I've had since preschool. So what is it about the online world?
I guess I should clarify my own reasons for turning the other cheek. I've confronted this person about the problem before, but to no avail. It's not a bully situation, nor am I playing a victim's role. There's very little left for me to do but to become a nag (I hate nagging), get violent (I hate violence), or just drop it and hope they figure it out on their own. Although a good deal of me says "Rub them in the dirt!", I don't think it would fix the problem, even temporarily. And I know how much asking people to take sides for or against friends ends up hurting. I've been stuck in the middle way too many times.
This is a personal problem. It involves me, and the offender. No one else. Unless I chose to let it grow. I could ask people to take sides, indeed, that's what a public confrontation would do. It might bolster my ego or even my courage if I had people telling me that I'm right. But I don't think that's the right path for me right now. If it were something that hurt more people than myself, I might have chosen differently. If it were something that could have been solved or improved by confrontation, I might have said something.
I agree with Kareila, comparing twink wars and petty personal squabbles to 9/11 and WW2 is a pretty big stretch (in my personal and often fallible opinion). For instance, the reason that Britain and France ignored Hitler for so long is that they were in the middle of a huge crisis of their own: the great Depression. They also weren't over all the other wars they had been fighting recently. They couldn't afford to confront him, they probably would have lost if they had right then. At least, this is what my History prof says. I'll stay away from 9/11 as a measure of self-preservation.
Of course, I'm one of those infuriating (or so I've been told) people who usually refuses to take sides in arguments. I will admit that sometimes it seems like the only way to get out of a situation is to fight. But in many instances, fighting just won't work. In response to your WW2 and 9/11, I'll use the Middle East as an example. People have been fighting for hundreds of years. It's not going to improve. Neither side will budge or listen, just shoot and die. The only way life for them will get better is to stop fighting and let go of the conflict.
I let go.