ToTW: form is content: how we fight

confusion can open your mind

How do you do conflict? If you're a regular on anews, then you're probably at least somewhat familiar with the embrace of conflict that this site has suggested for years now (not to mention, embodied). But there are so many ways to be in conflict.

This site started out with a broad base, leavened with a sense of humor that poked fun at people's assumptions and dogmas, which is one way to be in conflict. If you wanted to know one lens that Worker used to view the things posted on the site, then you could visit the rollers. Instead of that being a choice that readers could make, it became a requirement, as if the post was being judged and the in-crowd was laughing at some posts/people behind their backs.

I've been chatting with someone whose mom thinks that covid vaccines might be loaded with nanobots that will control people's behavior. This made me think about how to address that belief (addressing it at all is of course not necessary--which is yet another way of being in conflict). My tendency, probably most people's tendencies, is to be direct in rebuttal, but it's more fun to think about ways to get people to ponder their own decisions without getting their armor up, without providing them a clear enemy to fight. (I have found that the enemies that people make from what they hear of my arguments are almost never accurate to my beliefs, so things get more and more mystified...) That same person just pointed me to Eris, the goddess of discord, who I take to be a positive challenge. While I think it's easy to think of her as promoting the "argue for the sake of winning" terrible-ness, I think she's more about being devil's advocate, changing her position on a dime in order to keep the argument going. She (like me) appreciates the energy that comes from argument, and that is more important than winning or losing. Which brings us to the first question here: what does it mean to win or lose a conflict? If you just answer that one question, this totw will have been worth it.

So, for the purposes of this ToTW, here are some types of conflict responses: 1. avoidance; 2. direct refutation of facts; 3. attack of person who disagrees with you; 4. redirection of various sorts, like, questioning the source of someone's information, or pointing out other interpretations of facts...

What has been the most creative way you've responded to a disagreement with someone? What have been conflicts you've been in where you felt closer to the person/people afterwards (the classic boys fighting then being best friends trope)? When have you made a brilliant argument that totally worked for you but didn't work for the person/people you were fighting with? And vice versa? (Like when you argue something that has an impact on the other person, but you realize is not really what you believe at all...) What has been the most surprising outcome of a conflict you've been in or seen someone else be in? What styles of conflict have made you feel better/worse about yourself and/or the people around you?

There are 33 Comments

How did you address it in the end? I'm curious.

I'm not saying I "believe it" myself, of course, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On the other hand, it would not surprise me. I dunno. I find the certainty with which most people deny these things totally out of hand to be a little strange. What makes you so sure? Could it be you have an unexamined "normalcy bias" ?? Theoretically, the necessary technology for that sort of thing already exists.

All that's required is the necessary scrupulousness at the top, and a compartmentalized project-management style to make it happen.

Lets not forget that conspiracies have historically been a thing. The Manhattan project, for instance. You had hundreds of thousands of brilliant minds put to work on a project that was compartmentalized to the point that no one single person other than central command was ever aware of the totality of what was being designed. The left hand doesn't see what the right hand is doing, and vice versa.

You do one little job, you build a "widget" in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know: it's 2 miles under the Nevada desert, the essential component of an atomic death machine.

"What has been the most creative way you've responded to a disagreement with someone? "

i shot them in the face with my eyes closed.

I only engage in conflicts or debates when it brings me pleasure...for example if I am going to learn something, or if I feel the topic is inherently interesting to me, or if I enjoy the company of my interlocutor. If not, I prefer to read, or nap, or seek someone who attracts me...

Most of the time, conflicts are simply draining...and I'm not so attached to my position in the debate that I would waste my time defending it...

Thanks for asking.

"Which brings us to the first question here: what does it mean to win or lose a conflict? If you just answer that one question, this totw will have been worth it."

Ah, there will be no definite answers here, but I will start by listing the some notions that I've encountered "in the wild". Conditions to winning an argument:

1. having the last word- it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense or if it isn't a word, or if they waited until the person is just leaving and so say it behind their back.
2. speaking the loudest
3. saying the most hurtful thing- the best insult they can come up with or thing they can drag up even if it doesn't have anything to do with what's being discussed.
4. leaving the conversation- turn around, or put on headphones, the point is to leave before they hear any rebuttal
5. crying- now you have to apologize to de-escalate instead of attempting a rebuttal to what they just said.

But this is just a list of annoying things about dealing with annoying people. Now moving on to what's listed on the totw:

"types of conflict responses: 1. avoidance; 2. direct refutation of facts; 3. attack of person who disagrees with you; 4. redirection of various sorts, like, questioning the source of someone's information, or pointing out other interpretations of facts..."

Consider every argument avoided as a triumph. Not that you should fear them or that conflict is to be avoided, but most arguments a wastes of time and not fun. Specially when the argument is not about facts, but simply you don't like each other and never will. Sometimes people argue to see what they can get away with, not because of any disagreement, they're just testing u

When it comes to facts, sometimes showing is better than telling, so you can avoid the argument by resorting to proof or the evidence, instead of just going by each other's word. This is not always possible or convenient, but when it is, skip the speaking/assertion part. If things are not that clear-cut, be humble, give them the benefit of the doubt, even if you think you're right, hear them out even if it sounds wrong, you will look like a fool if you double down on something you're not sure about and then turn out to be wrong. The other person will usually appreciate you listening to them and treating them like an intelligent person capable of figuring things out and understanding things, whether they were right or wrong.

"What has been the most creative way you've responded to a disagreement with someone?"

Well, creative is usually not good news. If I have to get creative in an argument, it usually stems from frustration, because speaking is not working. Here is when it devolves to mockery, irony, sarcasm, and attempts to confuse and trip the other person into reconsidering what they're saying or stop repeating it or talking to you.

"What have been conflicts you've been in where you felt closer to the person/people afterwards (the classic boys fighting then being best friends trope)?"

I had a disagreement with 2 friends, one of them got heated. He didn't know how to react, used to us agreeing on things, and he was hinting I should leave. I didn't press the issue and explained that we could disagree on things, that it was alright, that we didn't need to argue any further. He calmed down and we moved on to another topic.

"What has been the most surprising outcome of a conflict you've been in or seen someone else be in?"

The other person starts crying and then the argument no longer matters. The other person tries to punch you and the then argument no longer matters.

"What styles of conflict have made you feel better/worse about yourself and/or the people around you?"

Conflict is a bad time in general, it makes you feel worse for a while, but you get over it, unless it's really bad, and then that's the type of thing people don't recover from. That's the drama of people, you see it everywhere around you and on the news and in history etc.

pretty good post, you already covered a lot of what I would have said.

beyond the basic chess or checkers questions of how to use rhetoric against someone when you're not feeling generous (rhetoric is a lot of fun and worth some study imo, especially for those with a sadistic streak!) but setting that aside cuz snark is fun and most of us do it and that's obvious ...

the part where you say "consider every argument avoided as a triumph", that's an important distinction for me: arguing in good faith with my friends or loved ones or people that I want to reach for understanding with, in that case, I completely agree with you.

but those types of conflicts are usually about confusion/bad communication, which is why they're a waste of time as you say but I'm always also sorting confusion conflict from REAL conflict.

Real conflict is everything. It's the whole damn world of suck, much of which we are opposing as anarchists. Two intractable positions, sometimes held by enemies, sometimes when at least one of the two isn't emotionally ready or physically able to acknowledge that what they're doing is squaring off with their enemy.

That conflict isn't a waste of time at all imo. Arguably it's the only worthwhile use of time? Unless you're a conflict avoidant person haha

A lot of conflict is resolved without dialogue, things that I would call navigation. A lot of petty conflict, all the way up to large conflict, is not about facts in dispute or even disagreements, but opposition of wills, both are fighting over the same thing or over opposed courses of actions. A petty dispute could be a parent does not want his child to play listen to certain music, or go to a party, the child might not be able to persuade them otherwise, but they can listen to it without their permission and find a way to sneak out. Same with managers and bosses in workplaces. Sometimes you just need distance to do your thing without your opponent intervening or finding out. Other times the conflict becomes opposition of forces, a different kind of chess and checkers that's not so rhetorical, but is often accompanied by rhetoric.

Instead of making a clearer connection or segue, I'll just jump to the notion of "speaking truth to power" and consciousness raising, and other pedagogical or even evangelical inclinations. These inclinations feel at home in the sphere of talk, conversation, debate. There's manipulation of framing, and different kinds, even with statistics, then there are those who are more versed in the application of force. Both kinds feel at home in their domains and pick targets and battles according to how it suits them better. And here I will make the distinction of conflict and sports or competition (including per-arranged debates), in the latter both parts agree and have a common goal of participating in a certain activity, even if the contest will have one winner.

Real arguments and conflict each wants to have their way, sometimes without hopes for collaboration or compromise. A consistent and principled anarchist will rather leave frustrated rather than even considering forcing or manipulating someone into their preferred arrangement or outcome, and will also not let themselves be walked over or trampled be it by superior force, logic or rhetoric. Inevitably you will be defeated, so either you behave like a good loser/good sport, learn from your defeat so you can fare better next time and/or you manage to get revenge.

And this doesn't exhaust the topic, the ramble will continue...

yeah, but you sure are talking to yourself mostly with that post.

What does it mean to win or lose the [blank] conflict?

Where [blank] equals - internet, feelings, ego, social capital, cool kid, dick helicoptering, etc

Answer: nothing.

But for all other conflicts, EVERYTHING.

i like arguing. i like conversations that matter, where there is, so to speak, skin in the game. i hate small talk, although i recognize that it plays a useful lubricating role between people. as the post mentions, there is a vibrancy that comes from disagreement, not contradiction (monty python in the hizzous), but actual argumentation, where people are working out and explaining differing positions.
the most creative one i can remember was the house i lived in was going to try to address issues that weren't getting worked out (someone had been talked about a few times and wasn't changing their behavior) by writing a song about it. so if there was a song, then that was an indication of a high level of frustration. fun idea. didn't really happen. but could've!

"i like arguing."

Me too, I love it! I totally agree.

"i like conversations that matter, where there is, so to speak, skin in the game."

But this conversation in particular between you and I doesn't matter, and none of us have any skin in this game.

"i hate small talk, although i recognize that it plays a useful lubricating role between people."

I don't know what you mean. How's the weather?

"as the post mentions, there is a vibrancy that comes from disagreement, not contradiction (monty python in the hizzous), but actual argumentation, where people are working out and explaining differing positions."

No there's not.

"the most creative one i can remember was the house i lived in was going to try to address issues that weren't getting worked out (someone had been talked about a few times and wasn't changing their behavior) by writing a song about it. so if there was a song, then that was an indication of a high level of frustration. fun idea. didn't really happen. but could've!"

Yeah, living in houses with people is terrible, tell me about it.

lol!

1. show up to discussion
2. take a big shit on it
3. proceed to ramble for a paragraph and say nothing interesting
4. win the internet forever
5. resume scanning for next place to shit

"I've been chatting with someone whose mom thinks that covid vaccines might be loaded with nanobots that will control people's behavior. This made me think about how to address that belief (addressing it at all is of course not necessary--which is yet another way of being in conflict)."

Tell her they're also putting nanobots in her water, her food and her favorite brand of soda. Send her links to chemtrails and 5g corona relay antennas. Maybe she'll go crazy and burn something.

"Which brings us to the first question here: what does it mean to win or lose a conflict?"

You win a conflict when you write the official history, you lose a conflict when your people get genocided.
You win a conflict when the wining alliance of superpowers backs you, you lose a conflict when not even your neighbors, family or friends backs you. You win a conflict when whatever happens after all is said and done, you had an awesome life. If the opposite happens, then you lost. You win when you're powerful, not when you're right. What good is it if they apologize, pardon you, or concede you were right posthumously?

Maybe...you win if the arguments are interesting, and lose if they are not. Maybe it all depends if what you're smoking is good.

What arguments are interesting? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is cereal a soup? Is abortion murder? Is there a GOD? Is GOD aliens that impregnated Mary with nanobots?

Maybe one day anarchists will develop the perfect way to argue and solve all the world's problems by publishing a book "The Joy of Arguing: A 12 step program to hold 12 hour meetings" and then people will finally do their dishes.

making and taking conflict personally - when the issue being argued is in fact not personal but around perspective and ideology - is the biggest obstacle i have found to useful conflict. people generally seem so attached to their ideas that arguing against those ideas is far too often taken as a personal attack on their identity. yes, i guess i am pointing to the fact that most people maintain dogmatic attachments to their ideas, making them largely incapable of distinguishing between critique of those ideas and a personal attack on them.

then again, some people just have condescending, purely dogmatic attitudes about their ideas, and make useful discussion virtually impossible.

sometimes discussion means making yourself pliable to change, and this necessitates vulnerability and exposing yourself, therefore a prerequisite for this is trust, or at least, if not trust, that the person feel comfortable with the other person and the context in which the discussion is to take place, inviting the other person to intellectual intercourse, co-shaping the most intimate aspect of themselves, their thoughts, ideas, beliefs, hopes, fears, in this way giving birth to other ideas, attitudes and ways of seeing things, and in a way, to a new person, ever becoming

people are constantly bombarded by messages through media, and people in the street, or calling them on the phone, trying to influence them, all want to have a say in the shaping, and in a way they inevitably do. are you bemoaning that people are not more readily pliable to your whims and suggestions? maybe they were before and learned the hard way to put up defenses, or maybe plenty came before you to shape them in such a way and to such a degree as you would have wished, and you just came too late

but also, i think trust is overrated in some of these situations. i was part of a study group that was open to the public, and i learned in that group (from watching other people do this better than i could), that one can be open to criticism with no personal trust in the criticizer. they can be strangers, and one can still be open to their feedback, even when they're drunk and you've never seen them before.

in that case the trust you have, i guess, is in yourself, or maybe in the rest of the group and yourself (being outnumbered makes things harder). but there is definitely something about threat, what is the threat, where does one see the threat coming from, and if there are competing threats, which one is worse... yea, all that.

In September I was driving home from work on this narrow dirt road, a glorified path, really, not meant for going much over 15mph. Dusk. This red suburban with a giant American flag on a pole attached to its hitch turned onto the road, coming my way at what must have been 60mph, dust clouds kicking up. He was swerving from side to side, forcing me to pull into an orchard. Because it's a small town and everybody knows everybody - I'm raising an infant so very well could have had him in the car - I flashed my lights at the driver to slow down. He shot past me. I turned back onto the road, and in my rearview saw the flag whip around as his car fishtailed into a 180, flashing its lights, accelerating towards me.

Assuming this guy was armed and out of his mind - rural Michigan - I kept driving, not particularly wanting to stop and have it out. Riding within inches of my bumper, he pressed onto me as I drove past my house. I didn't want to lead him there. He proceeded to chase me around the county for the next twenty or so miles, including a detour into town when he cut me off, pulled his car across the street, got out, and waited for me as I pulled my truck onto the sidewalk to maneuver around him. This saga lasted for another thirty minutes, him driving up on my bumper, going into the other lane driving next to me and swerving next to me, trying to run me off the road. Finally I held my phone out the driver's window like I was calling the cops and that made him turn away. (I didn't call the cops as I assumed this guy either was one, or was buddies with the sheriff's department.) Went home that night shaken up.

Texted a couple friends in town to see who the guy with the suburban with the monstrous American flag on the back was, and they told me the 25 year old's name. Turns out, his mother comes on our property every spring to hunt for morels. (I told you it is a small town!). Not wanting to call the cops, but also not wanting to just let this go because I didn't feel like I should have to live in fear of guys like this, I called her the next morning and told her what happened. She was mortified. She started by making excuses about how his sister was in town and she's been dealing with addiction issues and that night he was beside himself with anger about it. She ended with, "I'm going to make this right. Please don't call the police." She repeated: "Let me make this right."

The following day she arranged for her son to meet me in town, and we went for a walk outside. He is a large white man with a thick black beard; he was wearing blue jeans, muck boots and a plaid shirt. He opened up by saying hoarsely, "I'm sorry for driving aggressively a few nights ago."

"I'm gonna be real, man, driving aggressively was not the issue. Hunting me across the county for the better part of an hour as I was trying to get away from you was my problem."

He stopped walking. I did too. He teared up, "Yeah...I'm really sorry about that. That's not me. I don't know what got into me, and I just want to tell you I'm sorry. I make these cutting boards in the shape of Michigan. I'll text you a picture, if you want one."

"I'm good. I really appreciate the apology, though."

"I see you and your family walking down the road every day and I try to keep my speed down. I'll keep doing that."

"Thank you." We bumped elbows awkwardly and parted as quickly as we had met.

I see him probably three times a week now; he's driving a white pickup truck pocked with Trump Pence stickers. I reflect on the confrontation a lot. I still feel resentment towards him every time I see him; also, I can't help but feel that guys like this constitute the white nationalists we see at protests and on the internet, and that he is my enemy. But he's also my neighbor, and his apology wasn't meaningless. I'll probably see him today when I walk. There was resolution, but it is embedded in greater, unresolved conflict.

Fuck that. Wait until he finds out you're Jewish or a homosexual or a black Jewish homosexual. Set his truck on fire. It's the only way to ensure he won't road rage again.

Wow, was hoping this emile-esque narrative would end in marriage. Bummer!

13:39 thank you for sharing your story.

While I would not have encouraged you, or anyone else in such a situation given that we're using this story for discussion and as example, to light his truck on fire as 14:01 recommended (a bit mean-spirited, even if a bit funny, that they called your story an erotic story, since I do think there's a lot of interesting aspects you bring to the discussion).

I think this is how white privilege and privilege in general works to protect bigots, abusers and bullies of all sorts. They're always someone's neighbor, friend or family. Meanwhile minorities or even anarchist would generally not receive the same response in return if they were caught doing something lesser. They face higher risk of death or imprisonment and less support from community and that type of under the table apology arrangement.

If I would have been you, I wouldn't have flashed those lights, not condemning you for it, it's very likely anyone would have even honked out of reflex. Given that it was so simple for you to find out who he was, if you hadn't flashed the lights and he hadn't chased you, you could've still done your research and found out who he was.
I'm not wanting to be a backseat driver, and what's done is done, but I just mention this in the spirit of discussion should others reading this find themselves in such a situation.

Specially when living in a small town, it's easy to know who's who, not requiring a dedicated antifa operation that mostly end up in doxes and larping. which doesn't eliminate the problem, in fact often places them at a vulnerable position for these bigots to attack them. I would have also not included so many identifying features in your story, but that's just me being paranoid, then again I'm not the one being chased home (nor have offspring that live there) by an angry lunatic on a pickup who then found out who I was upon meeting me. What I would definitely do is crank up my security around the house and means of self-defense.

I liked how you acknowledge that "There was resolution, but it is embedded in greater, unresolved conflict.". Recognizing the various nested contexts, can sometimes lead you to avoid certain battles to avoid stirring up the bee-hive, specially if you're a wasp or a hive beetle. Sometimes avoiding can be better than a heated confrontation that ends your life or your freedom, or lukewarm confrontation that leads to a concession. Only you can tell which is better for you and which you prefer.

what does winning look like, and losing. how we do both in the same interaction. his apology, not meaningless, but far too easy for hours off your life.
"There was resolution, but it is embedded in greater, unresolved conflict." in-fucking-deed.

Been staring at this ToTW for a while now, as it comes up frequently in certain circles.
As I age, conflict is becoming less and less appealing to me, which is to say, conflict with and within my group of friends / acquaintances / those-on-the-side-I'm-on. To the extent that I am an anarchist, I am in conflict with the thing (people) for which, if it (they) knew I was in conflict with it (them), and that my opposition could be effectual, it (they) would just crush me like a bug. Strategic thinking requires me to remain opaque / hidden / obscure, not in overt conflict with, yet, until I can either be effectual or I just do not care any more about dying.
Conflict within my in group, unless it is in service toward freedom, is usually more of an annoyance than anything productive. If we are in disagreement about how to get free, then discussion, argument, disagreement or conflict can be useful, beneficial, productive, but maybe only if, at some point, we stop fighting each other and turn our attention to the actual thing (people) we are antagonistic toward.

i have been staring at this TOTW for awhile now as well, thank you for articulating a position i empathize with but had difficulty expressing myself, i have been struggling between 'burn it all down, fucking all of it!' and,
' maybe there is hope for the future ? ' i am not 18-35 and conflict takes on new meaning as i age, getting punched in the face at 30 is different then at 50 for me, and doing the punching is becoming even more of a problem due to disabling injuries from years of physical conflict, "Strategic thinking requires me to remain opaque / hidden / obscure, not in overt conflict with, yet, until I can either be effectual or I just do not care any more about dying." this pretty much sums it up, i am an isolated individual in an unfriendly community, my open conflict with it has done more damage then good and i am adopting a more Machiavellian approach as i move forward. be well

all due respect to the elders here but I can't help but read these posts as "petty conflict with my friends holds no appeal" ... which I would only hope is the case? because the reverse would mean you're just ... an asshole? LOVE PETTY CONFLICT WITH MY FRIENDS!!!
lets hope not.

and secondly you both seem to be ... just describing that your enemies are very strong and you don't like your chances? fair enough!

A thread by Margaret Killjoy that seemed relevant to this topic: https://twitter.com/magpiekilljoy/status/1339637395214446595 :

hot take: hot takes kill. the obsession with saying the right thing, especially the most cutting criticism, has driven people into dangerous mental health crises and will continue to.

building a culture that values exposing what's wrong with things (and especially, what's wrong with people), instead of what's redeemable about them, will never lead us to a better world.

for example: this hot take is also shitty. It diminishes the work done by people to figure out what's wrong in the world, because we need to know what's wrong in the world in order to turn things around.

it's a hot mess all the way down. being a content creator often requires chasing clout to some degree in order to get the support it takes to eat food and, you know, live. hot takes are a fast track to clout. say a clever thing, your numbers go up, you get to eat more food.

"clever" usually means biting, and it sometimes means cruel.

some of the people who hurt us deserve our cruelty. some of them don't. And maybe "deserve" is used incorrectly here. Maybe we deserve the ability to be cruel to our tormentors and oppressors.

I just know so many people who've been harmed, sometimes physically, by hot take culture.

This isn't a call for us to play nice in our rhetoric and critique necessarily. Maybe it's a call for us to temper our power with mercy.

Or maybe it's a hot take designed to get them retweets and build clout and drive people to my patreon so i can eat mac and cheese tonight, I don't fucking know.

I'm just frustrated by hot takes sometimes.

That nanobots were being implanted through vaccines, then that would make them better anarchists. How do you know anyway, you asshole, that vaccines don't have nanobots? I'm only doing this for you because obviously the morons are getting dumber by the day:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nanometer&oq=nanometer&aqs=chrome..69i57...

Anyways, think of the amount of cell towers that would get burnt down, if average people realized stuff like this.

so how long would you say you've been out for?

imagine your greatest accomplishment in life being your expert trolling of a bunch of anonymous anarchists on anews... something to proudly tell your grandchildren about...in the world of minecraft. great effort, 08:45....... ps. chrome mobile is snitching on you. get gud, son.

One thing i notice that happens a lot is people don't calibrate themselves to the people they are in conflict with or to the nature of the conflict they are in. Obviously there are many variables in every conflict, but one thing that comes to mind is when one person has a lot more experience or study of the thing in dispute and the other has little. Instead of experienced person taking a more didactic tone they take the nuclear approach. Some people just always take the nuclear approach. Like they are tone-deaf. On the other end, many people receive the didactic tone as condescending. Or they assume they are always on equal footing with whomever they are in conflict with and no one could ever possibly teach them something new or make them think about something in a different way. The pursuit of "being right" is wrapped up with self perception, self-worth.

I used to think that when two or more people have a disagreement and they find this vague thing together that gets called 'understanding' that that was a good feeling and really the thing to strive for: understanding. Maybe I just felt that way because it alleviated whatever anxiety or stress or hurt feelings i was experiencing or dealing out. In some way, _understanding_ seems fairly consistent with a dialectical form of argumentation. I am suspect of both maybe because the dialectic is a model to be applied over and over again wherein, to some degree, my agency is lost to the model that says that every single time I must synthesize with my contradiction. Wrestling with, accepting, and illuminating contradiction can be great but I think that it can be great without falling under the dialectical lens.

Arguing in the pursuit of truth seems overly optimistic to me. Arguing to win, in an eristic fashion appeals to me not because i seek to dominate in all arguments but that argument for the sake of argument has brought me a fair amount of pleasure. Has made me think about things I would not have thought of otherwise in my personal safe mental zone. When conflict goes from playfulness to heated and back again and we can respect each other enough to argue another day, that is what often feels right to me.

In the realm hostile conflicts one thing i have noticed is that the nature of the victory or whether I feel it as a victory at all quite often changes over time. A lot to do with unintended consequences.

damn, you're are so right!

confession time: many years ago now, before I discovered my calling here as a d-list snark troll, I came to the IRC chat and assumed I was in powerful disagreement with ideas (and people) and had beef. I was embarrassingly wrong as the young often are, didn't even have the tools to understand how or why I was wrong yet but I perceived most of it at the time as disagreement and conflict.

Time went on and people slapped me around with their much MUCH better thought out arguments, sometimes they even patiently explained things in a way where I didn't perceive it as conflict, which is even more impressive to me now, style and flourish on top of the basic skills. YEARS LATER ... I finally started to see they'd be right about a great many things (not always) and we did still disagree but my understanding was unrecognizably better. That's why I'm forever in debt to this place blah blah blah

But yeah, from the POV of young, angry, in a hurry, self righteous anarchist identifying person, I easily misunderstood my lack of appreciation for all the writing and thinking that's already taken places over CENTURIES as conflict.

Then I watched a long line of similar younger folks walk through the door and do moreorless the same thing.

and I was like "oh ... we all do that. cringe cringe cringe." But it's just how it is lol

well, the arrogant ones anyway

Add new comment