Conflict between human beings. Is it inevitable even in cuddle discussions?

HappinessHenryHappinessHenry
edited May 2019 in General

I just saw another two, ostensibly initially perfectly valuable, Discussions - "Would You Cuddle The Homeless" and "To All Racists Out There" begin, very quickly to go off track and...spectacularly crash and burn. Hell I even played my own small part in the latter, head on collision (I think?).

Which got me to thinking that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark here.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but I think I may be able to discern a pattern.

Perfectly good people put up perfect good (and often very stimulating and edifying) Discussion topics. Other perfectly good people chime in with most often perfectly good qualifications, clarifications, additions...and sometimes perfectly valid alternative takes on the OP's story.

But, by page 4, if it has not been closed down by poor old SoulcuddlerZ, it has often become a spiteful, mutually antagonistic grudge match.

And this is despite the fact that all of the regular participants at least, seem, at least to me, to have plenty of wisdom and wit to offer. On a regular basis.

As someone conjectured during the recent souring of "Would You Cuddle The Homeless", one of the problems is that people see their OP's as their "babies". And, let's face it, nobody likes to be told that their offspring are not entirely perfect. Right?

But my question is a slightly different one. How come none of the obvious love, patience, wisdom and down right common sense that all of the written combatants in the Discussion stouches regular display elsewhere - in their ACTUAL CUDDLING activities - prevails here. And manages to calm everyone involved down.

And for a bonus question, is it simply possible that TALKING about cuddling is not a good idea???

Your thoughts cuddle comrades?

MOD Edit: removed obscured swear word [SoulcuddlerZ]

«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    My first thought is, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

    People like to spar. The more you fight, the better you get at it. The trouble is that when you're online it's sometimes difficult to figure out when (and where) you should pull your punches to keep things friendly... and the online disinhibition effect doesn't help, either. So someone says a thing you disagree with, you express that disagreement, they defend their thing (whatever it was), and you're off!

    Why be patient? It's fun to fight, and the worst that can happen is the thread getting closed before you win. You're not hurting anyone you know, and you're not even touching them physically—so who cares? "Sticks and stones," right? There's no real need to calm things down, so people don't.

    In answer to your bonus question: No. Conflict can occur wherever people interact; doesn't mean interaction's a bad idea.

  • [Deleted User]CharlesTwisted (deleted user)

    Humans love to attack each other in order to assert dominance, create a sense of worth, and validate our own egos.

    It is inherent in the nature of a tribal oriented species.

    Usually in our social groups these attacks are done in ritualistic ways. Dominance is often asserted with size/attractiveness/body language/social status/wealth/career/family and so forth.

    On a text only forum, such as this one, those attacks (charitably called challenges, corrections, or alternate opinions) have no social norms or cultural subtleties.

    Add in the anonymity, and the utter lack of repercussions, that other social interactions have, and...

    Which means, essentially, that the gloves come off incredibly quickly, if they were ever on to begin with.

    The problem with social media is that it removes the social, but keeps the communication.

    And reveals an uncomfortable truth about who most people are under our masks of social niceties and cultural rituals.

  • HappinessHenryHappinessHenry

    Thanks @CharlesTwisted A truly heavy weight analysis (in the best possible way), given the fighting metaphor.

    So it's more bare knuckle/MMA rules rather than Marquis of Queensbury, when it comes to the Octagon (sorry I mean the Forum).

    Hhem, I just wondered if the occasional newbies might get the wrong impression and turn tail when they same the communicational carnage that sometimes ensues? And don't we want to keep as many cuddlers as possible for the benefit of the tribe.

    Or do you extend the Darwinian model to the fittest cuddlers surviving/if you can't stand the heat get out of the Discussion?

    Just ruminating. Not fighting talk. This round at least.

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    @HappinessHenry: "Communicational carnage"! Love it.

    Maybe we should try to keep the forums an endless love fest. Rampant positivity, all disagreements dropped, any ideas or words or phrases or thoughts that upset anyone banned, no words typed unless they're clearly and obviously glowingly happy... all that.

    But really—how boring. I wouldn't leave the site, but you can bet I'd leave the forums!

  • hogboblinhogboblin
    edited May 2019

    As @DarrenWalker stated, it’s fun to fight.

    Sometimes, however, the fighting is more akin to blasting a limbless child in the face with gravel. Which can be fun, in a hollow sort of way.

    Fortunately, participation in the forums isn’t mandatory.

  • [Deleted User]CharlesTwisted (deleted user)

    @HappinessHenry

    My opinion is that engaging in such things is ultimately a waste of time.

    Becoming “Internet dominant” is of dubious distinction.

    Once you are aware of the structure and motivations of these discussions if you continue in the competitive nature of these discussions you are basically treating other humans as sport.

    Hence, trawls...

    I apologize, trolls.

  • hogboblinhogboblin

    @DarrenWalker

    “Rampant positivity...”

    Did you hear me gag?

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    @hogboblin

    [grin]
    At the risk of giving you a swelled head: I did in fact write it specifically to gag you.

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @DarrenWalker At least you get it and history would bear you out. Just about every advance in human history was borne out of debates and conflicts before it became dogma. That is what makes your iron sharpens iron analogy accurate. Think about it—slavery, evolution, surgery, the cosmos (thank you Galileo)—all endured debates, condemnations, even fisticuffs before the inexorable crawl to a truth or decision on the subject. Can it become nasty? Yes, just look at Edison and Westinghouse going round and round on AC versus DC and the animals that were sacrificed in the name of science.....and profits. And do not think cuddling is innocent of profiteering.

    The irony is that when a thread is created to urge a peaceful and non-confrontational discourse, then it announces a desire for a new paradigm that can only come about by confrontation. Furthermore, it is lazy to blame confrontation on social media as debates and hostilities of opposing views took place in the form of letters and messengers for centuries. One person’s meanness is another’s demand for the truth. Unfortunately, the Pollyannas of the world will always get their feelings hurt and disparage those that shoot the psychic arrows. But hurt feelings do not make the injured person right.

    You are also right @DarrenWalker, the forums would be incredibly boring and pointless if such a paradigm came about. I for one grow weary from those without a modicum of talent posting about said talents, people panhandling to support their choices, and threads started on mundane dilemmas when two seconds of thought would have provided a mature answer. But we meet these people in everyday life everywhere—you bear those dramas and move on to have a laugh about them with friends over a pint, some 420 or your shrink. This is the human condition, and completely controlling debates and argument is akin to purges by totalitarian governments who brook no opposing views.

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    @FunCartel: You put that very well.

  • hogboblinhogboblin

    @FunCartel

    Your entire post is superb, but that last paragraph is particularly excellent.

    I was in the process of composing a more serious response to the subject at hand. Now, I really don’t need to do that. Thank you.

  • ReltvlyCanshesReltvlyCanshes

    Oh wow, you guys are all so smart and right! You write so elegantly and I’ve learned so much.

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel
    edited May 2019

    @BashfulLoner You shouldn’t have learned anything. We did not receive your tuition payment yet. However, I defend your right to sarcasm.

  • UKGuyUKGuy
    edited May 2019

    These forums would be so boring if everyone agreed with one another. One man's conflict is another man's entertainment. And sometimes you can learn things from both sides, about human nature if nothing else.

  • ReltvlyCanshesReltvlyCanshes

    I don’t think you guys understood what i was saying!

    I think all of you are always right, it’s obvious you’re smart! Even when we disagree on points I’m correct on, your still right. Your expression is so elegant i always come away feeling I’ve gained more incite into the world! It’s amazing i came here to learn the magic of cuddling and I’ve grown as a man. I’m thankful for all of you.

    Thanks for reading i just want to be heard.

  • KabochaKabocha

    Sat, 11 May 2019..#19..14:30:07 PDT

    @DarrenWalker : "As iron sharpens iron”
    One my old school favorite quotes.

    @HappinessHenry
    Bonus question:

    If folks/people uncomfortable with the word cuddling. I just shift topic about it to something more grounded in the moment. (Talk about Food or find other Mutual interest) some people are like Emperor Kuzcon (animated movie) and they have a “No Touchy” policy.
    (Most Of the time has none thing to do with you. Its just how they think or feel about it. Personal space or comfort)
    But doesn’t mean can’t spend time hang out with them and do other platonic activities.
    I went a tangent on this question, but I hope this helps?

    Like what everyone contributed so far.

    @BashfulLoner
    I heard you.

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @BashfulLoner Sorry, my bad. Misinterpretation on my part.

  • ReltvlyCanshesReltvlyCanshes

    @FunCartel i was just offering positive affirmation with a lot of sarcasm.
    But also trying to show what i think the reason is people get so contentious. Well the opposite, and maybe if people are more reflective it would ease the tensions.
    Thank you @Kabocha

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @BashfulLoner Contentious is in the eye of the beholder. And contentious threads can be interesting and informative. Some mistake disagreement as being contentious in the negative sense. There are others that see disagreement and by not engaging in the heart of the argument they feel they can make ludicrous claims that people are fighting for “internet dominance”. Others see it as an opportunity to call people trolls because of perceived conflict—even though calling names is trolling and contentious. It is the rare person who will look at both sides of the coin and rarer still that they do it always.

    As @hogboblin noted, you are not required to participate or read the various threads. I for one would rather read argumentation than a whiny rant about the forums.

  • ReltvlyCanshesReltvlyCanshes

    Yep

  • HappinessHenryHappinessHenry

    Ok everybodies (FC, DW, HB,CT. And Uncle Tom Cobblers And All). I think I am getting it.

    It's not about an either/or, black or white, good or bad, chocolate or vanilla, crack cocaine/meth/ice or just straight old fashioned "horse", as to what Forum discussions SHOULD be about.

    Instead it is about various ingredients. As in a recipe.

    Let me see if I am anywhere near the mark:

    20% robust pugnaciousness

    20% healthy acerbic sarcasm

    20% informed, intellectual debate

    20% all human interaction is good interaction

    20% love (NB this one is a matter of personal taste)

    20% basic math

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    If we're putting together a recipe for the perfect forum, I think my first attempt might look something like this:

    20% agreement
    30% disagreement
    40% interest in working out what the truth is (even if it's not what you thought it was)
    10% willingness to laugh at oneself
    0% grudges

    But, frankly, the concept of should is terribly subjective. There's no one recipe that will please everyone, and even if there were, who's going to impose it on everyone? The mods do a fine job of keeping things platonic (which is the most important thing on this site) and relatively civil. Everything else is up to us: a whole bunch of semi-random strangers.

    I like the forum as it is. I like the intellectual arguments, the happy sharing of music and pictures, the forming of friendships and enmities, the compliments and the insults. It's very human—and I like humans. They're fascinating. Human interaction is human interaction. Good? Bad? [shrug] It depends. Whose standards are we using?

    About all I can say on that front is that I like what we've got going here. It's good for me.

  • HoneyBooBooHoneyBooBoo
    edited May 2019

    @CharlesTwisted

    "....the utter lack of repercussions..."
    Since when?

    Men have been banned for mere suspicion of [fill in the blank].

    I found one ban due to a picture being posted as an example of uneven enforcement. It was declared doctored by Soulcuddler, only to be found original. A retraction of sorts was posted. The ban wasn't reversed.

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @DarrenWalker Absolutely the point. I recommend William Makepeace Thackeray’s Preface to the novel Vanity Fair called Before the Curtain. As the author he is behind the curtain looking into a fair before the story starts. What he describes is every level of society, different people, motivations and tribulations etc. He is describing London during the Napoleonic Wars, but he is actually describing the human condition. It is very akin to what you said.

    @HoneyBooBoo Very good point

  • HappinessHenryHappinessHenry

    Dear @HoneyBooBoo You have attributed "the utter lack of repercussions" as something I said. It appears? This was actually said by another poster.

  • HappinessHenryHappinessHenry

    Dear DW @DarrenWalker I agree with everyting you say. Except "then you go and spoil it all by saying something like..."truth"". Like all wise people you have regularly identified yourself as, among your many other virtues, being a "relativist", philosophically. Do you really believe in the absolute, non relative, version of reality, referred to as "truth"? Are you sure one man's truth is not another man (or woman's) poison?

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @HappinessHenry I do not think he was talking about philosophical truth necessarily. That is your assumption. Most modern philosophers avoid such labels as you try to assign for the same reason as you talk about truth. Nothing is absolute, but if you ascribe to a particular type of philosophy you have become absolute. Are you a relativist?

  • HoneyBooBooHoneyBooBoo

    Sorry @HappinessHenry

    Fixed it

  • RealManRealMan

    This brings up an interesting point in my mind: Differences of opinion & disagreements between humans are inevitable, I believe. But how we choose to handle those differences and behave in the face of them is something we have a great deal of control over.

    I happen to notice that this thread is very predominantly male, which makes sense because males tend to take a very direct approach to conflict resolution. Women, by contrast, often tend to handle conflict in a different, less-confrontational way, one that generally supports collaboration - so the composition of the participants in this thread is not surprising to me. (NOTE: I am not saying ALL women behave in any certain way, nor I am I proposing that either men's or women's approach is better than the other. I'm only calling to light one difference in how the sexes tend to behave differently. A very interesting Ted talk on this can be found at: )

    But really, whether we are men or women, the real question is: Why do we have such a compulsive need to be Right about our point of view? Especially on the Internet, populated by strangers, many of whom are going to disagree with you? What's the payoff? What do you get out of it? Rather than try to understand other peoples' motivations for "online sparring" (or whatever you'd choose to call it), it seems much more valuable for each & every one of us to examine our own motivations for saying what we say & posting what we post. Because we can at least be responsible for ourselves and our choices & actions.

  • WorthyWorthy

    Assuming positive intent would and does avoid much strife. In all areas of one’s life.

Sign In or Register to comment.