So my first question would be, why do people find the need to instigate conflict? Okay, that's very broad -- let me specify. In social situations with fairly direct or personal interaction -- like school, and in this case, online communities. What is the point of constantly defending oneself, of reasserting one's "superiority" when it hasn't even been challenged? Is it just to see if you can get a rise out of someone? Is it the classic negative-attention-is-better-than-no-attention behavior? Is it just self-victimization?

I'm going to be a bit backwards and address the symptoms before describing the source. When in a debate (flame war, rather), you really have three options: ignore the person, bitch them out, or give a reasoned reply. Only one of those has any hope of establishing any sort of understanding and actually ending the conflict, but it's often not used because some people *don't* want to end the conflict. Also, it doesn't really work against the more thickheaded types. But, I would ask -- if you're not going to do that, why reply at all? Why attack people, even if you do think they've sleighted you? You know it will only perpetuate the conflict ... The only reason I can think of is that some people actually get some sick enjoyment out of ripping each other apart (not debating -- debating is meant to both clarify one's own position and compare it with the other's, and actually has a vague goal of reaching some sort of agreement) that I can't understand. It just makes me feel drained, personally; I think it's sad that some people live that way, or think they need to.

And then once you get into that mindset, a conflict (rather than debate) will usually degenerate into vulgarity, or some kind of ad hominem (or plain old name-calling) response. I don't want to be a prude and say people *shouldn't* swear. I mean, I do. I just don't like it when that's all some people seem to be able to say when they're 'seriously' arguing an issue -- for one, it gets repetitive, and for another, you lose the meaning. If, for instance, I only used three words, in the general pattern of "this is that" and "that is this," how would anyone know what I meant, and why I felt the way I did? I know it's cliche, but constant swearing does tend to indicate a lack of substance. Cut out the swear words, and what does it all mean? What is the person saying? How am I supposed to sympathize or even comprehend their position? I guess people who will seek conflict just for the sake of it don't really care about other people understanding them. But then ... how do you 'win'? When the other person grovels in submission to your all-powerful ... insults? Or the fact that you can spew off "you're so fucking stupid and you're wrong because you're a fucking bitch tramp ho," etc.? Oooh, your ability to reply to insults astounds me. Do take note that nothing of substance was actually said. Top it off with some kind of epithet or command to perform something crudely sexual and we'll both have wasted a good minute or two of our lives.

Anyway, so the reason for all this. At least, as I've observed it. I've seen quite a few instances where some group, either Marginalized And Heroic or adopting the label (Heroically), will oppose the Ruling Elitists (who usually don't notice or care), all for the sake of ...! (ummm, I think it might be counter hits. I'm not sure.) And the thing is, I can never see the point. I think elitism is stupid and pointless myself, but usually in these conflicts I don't see what's so 'elitist' about The Enemy. Probably because my definition of elitist is someone who excludes or criticizes people based on fandom tenure, popularity (ephemeral as it is online), or supposed fanfic/website/fuzzy slipper quality. On the other hand, in the cases I've observed, it's often that a certain ML or other group has established a sense of community (as often happens when people spend time together), and seems closed off to newbies, even though there is no such stated practice among the community. (Sometimes I just want to scream at people, "Yes! People make friends! You're not the first one on the Internet, so no one's going to wait for you to catch up. It happens when you're the new kid in school, or start a new job -- awkward? Of course. Difficult? Sure. Unfair? In a sense. A sign that the world is somehow out to ostracize *you*? No, you self-involved wanker!!")

So then, New Group A starts up in counter to Old Group B. Because they don't think they can get into Group B, or because they don't like Group B, or because some 13 year-old wants to be an ML mod. Depends. Typically, Old Group B is unaware of this, because news does take some time to travel. What you don't see are posts by Group B members trying to rally people to 'defend' against the newcomers, or warn about encroachments on digital territory. When Group A is one of those groups meant to be a replacement for the B-ers, they often take this as a sign that they must advertise themselves as 'better' than the Evil Old Elitists. Otherwise -- I don't know, they'll somehow feel like Group B is actively persecuting them or something. Sometimes, Group A will be the ones to speak out first -- whether or not they 'care' about Group B. *They* are being misunderstood. *They* are being attacked. *They* of course never wanted to cause problems, or maybe they consciously do not give a rat's ass about Group B, so I'm going to post on your ML/message board/LJ until you stop bothering us!!

Look, the 'old' people aren't necessarily infallible. They're not necessarily even nice, because they're individuals instead of a homogenous mass; and often some of them *are* revered when they lack talent or originality. *Those* parts of the insults (once you untangle the mangled grammar, improvised spelling, or insertation of epithets ever third word) may be true. But -- in the conflicts I've seen -- they've never been the initial antagonizers. Once things get messy, yeah, some of them get in there and get just as down and dirty or immature as the original flamers. But the attacks on the upstarts? They're just not there. Replies to individual actions or insults may be 'justified,' as the rules of arguments go, but at that point it's out of the hands of the communities and should be out of public domain. Why the need to be on the defensive? Why the need to have the 'victim' status to fall back on, just so that in the end, after the screaming and hissing is over, you can say you're still 'better' than the other person? Is there really nothing else to spend your energy on?

I don't like negativity. No matter how much I disagree with someone, I respect them and like to hear from them as long as I know their ultimate intent is productive. They can be self-righteous and absurd, but if they attempt to get along and at least listen to others, I'm happy. It's odd, and I guess the people I'm talking about would consider it being a pansy, because that's the image they often project -- in conflict they present themselves as lofty and bitchy, or maybe foul-mouthed and tough. 'Understanding' and 'feeling' are sneered at. (Personally, I get annoyed, because it seems to take a lot of unnecessary energy and it often feels empty to me. We project images all the time without thought, but people who consciously cultivate and cling to one prompt no other explanation but that of covering for some inadequacy.) I think you *should* be positive. But not out of some flowers-and-hearts wish for happiness and people getting along -- rather, because you can't hope to understand people otherwise, and if you can't do that you can't get anything done. Maybe not a perfect compromise, but at least try for something. Running around without a being able to see your goal is better than kicking around a bunch of dirt but staying in the same damn place. Better for me, personally, and for everyone. I don't think I could ever explain it to a really negative person, though, because that kind of mindset seems to require a desire to forego growth of any kind, and tangle yourself up inside, just to be able to call yourself 'right' in the end.

Like I can say I'm in the right. Here I am getting riled up by these incidents, even as I'm saying they're meaningless. I am trying to deal with that -- first, by not getting angry over petty insult wars >_< -- I just think I need to express this. And at least now I feel better, like I've made some attempt at progress -- even if the people that I'm addressing would probably ignore this if they saw it. I like that better than the kind of satisfaction you get from participating in flame wars -- that kind of dark and sour satisfaction that just feels like something inside has been twisted around instead of resolved. But I've been going on for a really long time. Tomorrow I should talk about something less troubling than the permeating presence of vindictive negativity in people ... like Alice 19th 5, perhaps. ^_^;;