DISPATCH FROM THE FRONT LINES

Our newest correspondent, Livid, has sent over his latest story from the Maginot line that is 2 Way Street Politics:

I’ve been troubled of late because of chat room conversation in the political rooms surrounding issues of virtually no import, and certainly no relevance to the topics being discussed in the rooms, ie. politics. While all sorts of individuals including liberals, moderates, conservatives, neocons, etc. are guilty of this, the lapse seems to have overtaken some more than others. Virginia1776 is a prime example.

Recently I saw a debate between her and one of the roomies in both text and the mic that extended itself to what seemed like a couple of hours. The topic? Some sort of disagreement about “measurement” terms, exponential vs. logarithmic, as I recall. Afterward she even put some inane response in her blog that she then posted in the room, apparently hoping it would be read. Her blog made no sense at all, nor did it even seem to deliver any real point except her claim she was right and her combatant was wrong, but it appears she is more interested in endless debate about topics of “suspect” relevance, caring not a whit about if it adds value to the room, or interest to others. It seems she is more interested in the “appearance” she is right, no matter the topic, much as a small child will argue indefinitely and selfishly about some self centered matter that is of niggling importance.

I’ve often seen her completely misinterpret what speakers or text writers say, simply to provide herself with a reason to initiate an argument that has little or nothing to do with any topic at hand, and that certainly does nothing at all to make any sort of progress toward a productive environment. While it’s true she’s emotionally a child, she’s not stupid. It is very difficult to believe she can be so diametrically in opposition to the true meaning and content of words spoken and written in simple language without doing it intentionally and disingenuously. Yesterday it was my turn in the box with the child, and while it’s not my first time, I am very much aware I am not alone in that respect. I’ve learned over time simply just to tune her out, even while she throws little tantrums about not being paid enough attention, when she resorts to insults and expletives and degrading comments in an attempt to gain your response to whatever miniscule issue she wishes to discuss. The scene was as follows:

The conversation in 2 Way Street Politics, both in text and at the mic, generally centered around Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the Middle East as it relates to war and terrorism. Tossed into the mix were comments about the difficulties in Africa regarding refugees, and the civil strife that permeates the area, as well as associated commentary about the US policies as they relate to these regions and their problems. It was a serious conversation, addressing lost lives and resources of shattering nature that deserve the attention of all of us.

The next thing I know, Virginia makes the claim in text that the Roman Empire was tolerant of “other” religions during its reign. I’m guessing it was in response to someone who disagreed with her on some small matter. How she concluded this issue could supersede the topic at hand’s vital importance is beyond my comprehension for anyone with even the most minimal awareness. Since we know Caesar and various incarnations of Roman rulers were thought to be Gods of a sort and to be worshiped “above” any religion or God, I responded in text something to the affect, “Yeah, that whole crucifixion of Christ ‘thingie” was very tolerant!” Having seen her attempts to distract from the very real issues of the day, I’d tired of her flights of fantasy enough to have responded in that manner. Well, that set Virginia askew and the churlishly crude and patronizing reaction from her was quick and not unexpected. That’s what she does when she’s confronted with the truth. She attacks. By the way, that reaction happens to fall within one of the principle reactions of fascism, to attack, knowing full well she was wrong, but to attack nevertheless, basically ignoring all evidence in order to “appear” to be right. It’s also the method of a self-centered mind.

We know the Romans allowed Christ to be killed, and could easily have disallowed it. After all, they were the masters of the Jews and the High Priest(s) held sway at the largesse of Rome. We know the Romans had a “problem” with Christianity because of its belief in only one God. The Romans had a religion of their own, not based on any central belief, but on a mixture of fragmented rituals, taboos, superstitions, and traditions which they collected over the years from a number of sources. They simply did not trust another religion so different from their own, and like modern cultures, persecuted that which they did not understand.

Not long after the death of Christ, edicts were written and enforced which severely persecuted Christians by ordering churches destroyed, books burned, priests jailed, and even household servants deprived of their liberty if they persisted in professing Christian belief. Christians were forbidden to assemble and were placed outside the law. Those who refused to sacrifice to the gods were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. There’s that whole Christian and lion thing we’ve all been taught about as well. About 300 years (or a bit more) after Christ’s death, Rome determined a more liberal policy toward Christians, mostly because of a couple of incidents.

First, the Roman ruler Galerius issued an edict shortly before his death in which he explained the persecution and then granted tolerance to the Christian religion. He believed his fatal illness was the vengeance of the Christian God. Second, while on his way to Rome with his army to battle Maxentius for control of the western empire, Constantine saw a cross in the sky over the sun, with the message, "In This Conquer." He ordered his soldiers to mark on their shields the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ (chi, rho) and put a cross-bar on their flag staffs to make them resemble Christian crosses. He was victorious in battle at the Milvian Bridge over the Tiber River and considered his victory confirmation of his decision to endorse Christianity. However, a couple of years later, the tolerance begun by these events fell into disfavor with changing politics and rulers within Rome, and it was back to square one again, and off and on this went for a period of time, along with other events too complex and numerous for this writing.

In any case, rather than embark on a never ending argument with Virginia, I simply ignored her, absorbing the taunts she threw without response. Yes, it annoyed her no end, but like the child who throws the tantrum, or holds its breath, she eventually tired of it. However, I came away from her assault, one among many perpetrated upon me and others with some distressing observations. That distress is based not on anything so much as my concern for helpful, productive dialog in chat rooms ostensibly formed to discuss and seek solutions to the problems in the world today. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always felt these rooms were there to assist us in the consideration of important and critical issues of the world, to allow the free flow of ideas and opinions in order that we can better educate ourselves and one another so that we can be better citizens of our country and of the world, and so we can contribute what we can to that end, both within the chat rooms, and in our daily lives.

I see Virginia’s obsession with arguing simply to be noticed, only to satisfy her own need, to gratify some childish set of emotions, as being an obstacle to that. I realize she’s very young, has almost no experience beyond the protected shell of her existence heretofore, and I recall possessing a somewhat similar lack of character and maturity when I was much younger than her. However, she’s now in her early twenties, and perhaps it’s time for her to learn things that books cannot teach. Consider this. While the chat room was involved in a discussion of issues that threaten hundreds of thousands of lives, either because of violence or famine or disease or displacement of entire cultures, Virginia wanted to debate whether the Roman Empire was tolerant or not. I made it very clear I didn’t wish to pursue her agenda, but she was like the puppy with a bone she would not and could not relinquish.

Where is the maturity of priority? Certainly by now she should have begun to understand adults cannot cling to childish ways, and in order to truly gain wisdom, must relinquish that which is self-serving and prideful, to another level of thought, more complex and textured, with more depth and volume, which can and does allow for one to grow to be a much stronger, much wiser, more productive human being. She does not yet know the joys of this expansion of mind and spirit, and so therefore knows not what she misses by eluding it, and perhaps she’ll end up like a lot of others we’ve seen who have passed through these rooms, and may never feel the elation of truth and moral knowledge that is within us all if we seek it. Unless and until she opens herself to this, she cannot realize but a fraction of her potential, nor anything but a fraction of the happiness it can and does bring.

If her behavior were infrequent, it could be dismissed as lapses in judgment or temporary backsliding into immaturity. However, it happens much too often for that to be true. It’s intentional and she endeavors to force her agenda on others any time she finds the opportunity. The key is to avoid providing her that opportunity. A tip here for those of you with compassion for someone such as Virginia, whether you’re a friend or just someone interested in helping others overcome their own self inflicted obstacles in the hopes than humankind can improve their lot. She will continue to be stuck in the mire of her own making unless she begins to see the affect of her behavior upon herself. The best way to do that is to avoid conversation with her (until she “gets” it) when she falls into her self-serving routine. What do parents do when their children act out? They give them a time out because a kid hates not being able to socialize more than anything. That’s the only way Virginia will learn as well. Anything else simply feeds the consuming behavior that is already rapidly becoming second nature to her.

This behavior will not serve her well when eventually she is forced to confront the real world.If you truly have compassion for her (and others, some of whom are even older than her), you’ll demonstrate the same limitations parents do with their children, hoping you can provide them with the tools they need to be productive and happy adults in a world so badly in need of wisdom and understanding. No, you don’t need to be rude to her; just don’t nourish her lack of decency by doing what she wants you to do. Just don’t get caught up in the distraction she seeks to burden you with. She’s very good at trickery though, which is something one can fall into if you’re not alert. We all have our pride and ego, and she works on that. Whatever the reason for her stunted emotional growth, it is disruptive to productive and progressive activity, and ultimately is harmful to her. For her own good and the good of the room, as well as for the good that can go beyond the chat rooms, in the long term, it’s a far better thing you do by helping her now, than to continue to allow her to go down a road to nowhere, a road without soul, without peace, without wisdom, without growth, and without truly understanding love and consideration for others.

Contributed by: Livid