structured conflict
I know I'm a newby here, and I certainly don't have any right to tell anyone what to post. And I'm certainly not advocating we stop all political posting. All I'm asking for is a little relief. And if any of you others who are reading this think I'm out of line, tell me and I'll just go away. Maybe I'm just to dim to realize I don't fit in.
What's fascinating is how you're rapidly recapitulating several years of the development of the HabitableZone, and recognizing fundamental issues about this place. I'd say that, far from being a sign you don't fit in, it's a sign that you do--most people in the world would be oblivious to the currents of feeling and their significance, and wouldn't be likely to select themselves to be here.
I think what keeps the Zone going long after most other online communities disintegrate is that we've evolved a structure for conflict that limits the damage that can arise when people argue passionately. The goal is to prevent arguments from permanently damaging the relationships between Zoners. Imagine Tom at a "Marxist BB"...might last a few days at most, before the conflict escalates to the point where feelings are hurt and bridges burnt, and either Tom leaves again or that community begins to fracture.
Preserving the structured-conflict protocols is the subtext behind my endless arguments with RL over his comportment. I don't want permanent rips in the social fabric, vendettas and feuds and stalking and the like. The whole point of the experiment is to maximize the ability of people of very divergent viewpoints to get along and engage in discussion and build strong relationships despite their differences.
Lighten up, Tom. You're bright and articulate, I enjoy talking to you, and sometimes you're even right, but I'm really getting tired of having to watch everything I say without having to worry about getting a face full of claws. Sure, I'm guilty of crossing swords with you every now and then, and even occasionally enjoying it, but your capacity for conflict seems infinite. I've tried avoiding the longer political threads, I've tried being neutral, I've tried to be the middle of the roader, I've tried to guide the conversation in other directions, but it always comes to this. I've always felt myself to be pretty moderate, just somewhat left of center, but you come on like I was Mao on steroids.
Yep, that's our Tom. A lot of us have experienced the same pattern of engagement and frustration, but without giving up. For me, I've come to view Tom as a very good archetype of the modern Republican--his obsession with Democrats and his relentless negativity provide me with a high-fidelity representation of what's going through the minds of a majority of Republicans these days. In his approach, Tom is faithfully following the exhortation in this year's Republican playbook, "Painting the Map Red: The Fight for a Permanent Republican Majority" to "go negative!...go negative!...go negative!...go negative!...go negative!...go negative!...go negative!..." ad nauseum.
Fight with Tom, and you're rhetorically fighting the upcoming elections. If you can't fight with Tom, your (our) side is likely to lose the next election. Multiply Tom by about 20 million and you have the GOP in a nutshell.
So, if you think as I do that modern Republicans--the "NeoRepublican" Frankenstein created by stitching a "neoconservative" head on to the GOP body--are a grave danger to America, then it's almost as if one has a duty to soldier on arguing with Tom, as an act of essential patriotism.