Meant to respond earlier…

With some people, they tend to affect and influence any social space that they are inhabiting at any time, and have – well, you used the word – a toxic or threatening effect on the environment as far as debate or emotional discourse is concerned? Have I got you right there?

Yes, and a very good summation, I might add!

I personally hate to let things fester so whether I am fighting with a friend or an enemy, I’d rather just have it out and dump all the bad feelings out there and figure out if there’s any potential common ground or way to fix things, rather than stifling it or trying to smooth it over without really dealing with the underlying feelings at issue.

I feel the same way. So maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my post.

To me, honesty is one of the most important things in any relationship. I hate when things go unsaid, resentment builds, that kind of thing. Lets just say in the past it has led to some pretty monumental personal upheavals. I hate sugar-coating things and not expressing true feelings. I hate when people say one thing to your face and another behind your back.

What I was referring to above is, I hate fighting for the sake of fighting, when there does not seem to be any constructive goal in sight, or a resolution does not seem possible – because, in some of the cases above, one party does not WANT a resolution.

But not everyone has that sort of openness to fighting, and if you’re not someone who is comfortable with the potential for it to get ugly then the idea of bringing 2 people who seemingly hate each other together for the explicit purpose of fighting would seem like a very noxious idea.

I dunno, maybe I’m the warped one. I personally hate to let things fester so whether I am fighting with a friend or an enemy, I’d rather just have it out and dump all the bad feelings out there and figure out if there’s any potential common ground or way to fix things, rather than stifling it or trying to smooth it over without really dealing with the underlying feelings at issue.

I don’t know if this sort of blogger fight scenario would bring any good to the table, but I sincerely doubt it could make things much worse among any of the pairings mentioned. And I do suspect as others have suggested that if you had to say something to someone’s face and live with the impact of it, you’d probably be a lot more reluctant to tend towards the outrageous and instead focus on arguments over simple personal attacks. Or, at least, I would.

With people like this I have tried to reason with them. Tried to explain myself. As an eternal optimist to a fault, at some level I hold out this bizarre belief that, “If only I could explain myself clearly enough, surely I could get them to understand, because surely everyone is rational to some degree, right?”

And when I get proven wrong again and again, it’s not exactly heartening.

Yes, that!

Also, I think I get what you’re talking about here: “it’s about, I don’t know how to even say it, but I guess just a sense of how they manipulate the world around them?” With some people, they tend to affect and influence any social space that they are inhabiting at any time, and have – well, you used the word – a toxic or threatening effect on the environment as far as debate or emotional discourse is concerned? Have I got you right there?

There are exceptions of course, and it certainly doesn’t always work out that way. In some (hopefully obvious by now) cases it has made the arguments even more heated.

I think either outcome is possible, and note that I used the word vetted, not resolved. I don’t expect a tidy ending for most of those disputes.

With people like this I have tried to reason with them. Tried to explain myself. As an eternal optimist to a fault, at some level I hold out this bizarre belief that, “If only I could explain myself clearly enough, surely I could get them to understand, because surely everyone is rational to some degree, right?”

And when I get proven wrong again and again, it’s not exactly heartening.

I hate conflict. I especially hate anything resembling “bloodletting.” I also hate the thoroughly American idea that all opinions or side of an argument are equally valid.

I do think Rusty’s point holds value, that maybe if people had to look one another in the eye they wouldn’t have quite the set of brass balls they have behind the keyboard. But if they just turn around and say it again once they part ways? I don’t know what it was worth.

But I also think there’s potential for some long-lingering grudges to be vetted in a space where people can’t hide behind a keyboard, which could in theory be positive, at least in some cases

I think that’s right. I think I can honestly say I’ve heard both sides and think a lot of what’s gone around is honest disagreement but covered by a layer of viscera.

But I could be wrong. And once the bloodletting ends I can always go back to my weird esoteric books on philosophy.

I don’t think both of the parties in these types of “debates” (and I use that word in the loosest possible fashion) have an equal level/type of investment.

Certainly it would depend. With regards to Duane and The Other Guy, it would just be uncomfortable. The three that I mentioned have legitimate issues (political, journalism) with one another. But The Other Guy just seems to hate on Duane for no apparent reason except that he gets some sort of perverted glee from it.

For the others, it would be like an Airing of the Grievances and maybe everyone would come to some sort of mutual conclusion like “Hey! We have valid points. And now I understands yours!” Or not. It could wind up with just more bitterness.