Conflict Addiction

Foghorn

A thread on the Middle East conflict may have opened an interesting can of worms, or at least that's how I see it.

The arguments presented in that thread from all sides are mostly just a recitation of points already made countless times over decades, since before most of us were born. So the on topic arguments themselves weren't all that interesting.

However the thread may have demonstrated an important factor that fuels the Middle East conflict, and other such real world conflicts. Let's observe a few things about the thread.

First, the title of the thread made entirely clear what the subject was to be, and anyone who has used the Internet for more than a month undoubtably knew before they entered the thread that it was going to be a conflict zone. It's possible there has never been a thread on that topic that wasn't.

Next, anyone with half a brain would also know in advance that nothing in the real world would be accomplished by such a thread, given that world leaders probably aren't reading this forum in search of our advice. We knew in advance that the thread would make a bunch of noise, and then sooner or later it would end, having made no meaningful contribution to the welfare of humanity.

Many members of the forum wisely sidestepped the MidEast thread, much to their credit. So we will pause to applaud their rationality here. Woo hoo to you!!!

But some of us, like this poster for example, saw a thread that they knew in advance would be an exercise in pointless conflict, conflict for the sake of conflict, and we dove right in with enthusiasm. Combat, whoopee!!!

Upon entering the thread, at first we may have acted in a reasonably mature intelligent manner. But as the engagement loop unfolded some of us were pulled ever deeper in to a cycle of attack and counter attack. We could have left the thread at any time, we could have simply regained our common sense and moved on. But once the cycle of combat began we found it hard to let go. What the evidence suggests is...

We liked the conflict.

This is NOT another thread about the Middle East, because a perfectly good shit show on that subject already exists.

What I'm hoping to discuss is the phenomena of conflict addiction. Philosophy forums seem an appropriate place to explore this subject, which may have rather a lot to do with real world conflicts all over the world.

skyblack

Ha

Joshs

↪Foghorn

The difference between the middle east discussion and a general philosophical thread is that the former thread applied philosophical and political theory to a real world situation in which people are suffering and in which some commenters have a lot invested emotionally. Some participants identify strongly with what they see as victims of moral or even criminal immorality and cruelty, and they see their opponents on the thread as proxies for the perpetrators of these wrongs. To lose an argument is to let an atrocity go unchallenged. Other participants may not have been emotionally invested in one side or other in the Middle East but instead perceived the moral wrong being committed as intolerant bullying by politically obsessed commenters.
The ‘conflict addiction’ in all cases comes down to a compulsion to address a perceived injustice.

Foghorn

Ha — skyblack

No, that's wrong, TOTALLY WRONG!!! What is wrong with your brain??? Are you on drugs? Is your mother in the world's oldest business??? :-)

skyblack

@Foghorn

Pardon me?

Joshs

↪skyblack

he was joking

Foghorn

The difference between the middle east discussion and a general philosophical thread is that the former thread applied philosophical and political theory to a real world situation in which people are suffering and in which commenters have a lot invested emotionally. — Joshs

I'm questioning the degree to which the commenters, this one included, were invested emotionally in the actual topic.

Participants identify strongly with what they see as victims of moral or even criminal immorality and cruelty — Joshs

Questioning this too. I'd made possible exception for one poster who seemed to know people in the real world conflict zone. The rest of us, this poster included, questionable. How does participation in a meaningless activity demonstrate compassion for victims?

To lose an argument is to let an atrocity go unchallenged. — Joshs

Except that none of us in that thread are in a position to challenge those committing the atrocities, however we might have defined them.

Foghorn

he was joking — Joshs

Thank you, and sorry. My humor is so advanced that, um, I'm the only one who understands it. Or something....

skyblack

Thank you, and sorry. My humor is so advanced that, um, I'm the only one who understands it. Or something.... — Foghorn

Is it because of this?

No, that's wrong, TOTALLY WRONG!!! What is wrong with your brain??? Are you on drugs? Is your mother in the world's oldest business??? — Foghorn

Maybe yes maybe no. But giving you the benefit of the doubt I will attribute that to the wind you have been exposed to lately, and perhaps in the past. IMHO a better option is not get too carried away. Some things or some people can be too big, if they start coming closer. It's good to look at them from far away. :-) I meant to say this to others but i have been enjoying the fun, as they don't know where they stand. Humor doesn't have to be in bad taste.

Joshs

↪Foghorn

How does participation in a meaningless activity demonstrate compassion for victims? — Foghorn

If those involved in the discussion considered it meaningless they would not have reacted so strongly to each other.

none of us in that thread are in a position to challenge those committing the atrocities, however we might have defined them. — Foghorn

If we believe the person we are engaged in an argument with thousands of miles away harbors the same reprehensible views as those who are committing the atrocities , then the two become inseparable in our minds. We put ourselves in a position to challenge those committing the atrocities precisely by winning the argument against the commenter who we see as complicit.

Foghorn

If those involved in the discussion considered it meaningless they would not have reacted so strongly to each other. — Joshs

I think the experience was meaningful for those involved, but probably not because of the stated topic. I think the stated topic was most likely a prop, which served to help us hide our conflict addiction from ourselves.

The theory here is that if we were actually interested in the topic, we would have taken some action to serve the victims being discussed. We could have, for example, used the thread as an organizational tool for setting up a GoFundMe page. None of us, this poster included, showed the slightest interest in practical real world action.

I'm not condemning anybody here, including myself. This is a philosophy forum. Philosophy is supposed to be about a reach for clarity. I'm reaching, that's all.

BC

Next, anyone with half a brain would also know in advance that nothing in the real world would be accomplished by such a thread, given that world leaders probably aren't reading this forum in search of our advice. — Foghorn

Sir: (I'm presuming) You do not understand the function of threads such as the "Israel killing Civilians in Gaza and the West Bank". "Philosophical discussion is the nominal function; the real function is quite different. The Philosophy Forum, and especially its non-participant readers, is composed of many thousands of testosterone-fueled right wing / left wing cisgendered males who, for lack of this noble outlet, would pour into the streets. Arson, rape, and bloody murder would ensue. There are also low-T old gay codgers like me who no longer riot, rape, and pillage but are perfectly capable of mixing a decent molotov cocktail (vodka or gin, as preferred) for the front line men. This is not to mention all of the politically correct, gender-fluid, non-binary thems, thoses, and its who are perpetually pissed off with nature who will throw their delicate carcasses against the hard bronzed statues of the patriarchy.

Without The Philosophy Forum, and publications like the NYT, NPR, PBS, et al to contain this bubbling cauldron of controversy, bloodbaths would be a daily event. That might be a good thing were there adequate ideological oversight and guidance by the Central Committee, but alas there is not.

Joshs

↪Foghorn

I think the stated topic was most likely a prop, which served to help us hide our conflict addiction from ourselves. — Foghorn

I agree the topic was a prop, but not because it was hiding ‘conflict addiction’( why do non-political topics on this site normally not generate the same heat?). The middle east was a proxy for issues much closer to home, having to do with our relationships with people in our own communities.

Foghorn

↪Bitter Crank

Ha, ha! Sir Foghorn applauds the eloquent artistry of your post Sir Crank! And there's likely some truth to it. What kind of trouble might I get sucked in to if I wasn't distracted, and thus pacified, by the Internutz?

Well, for most of the year I would be in the woods, the actual real world, where peace abounds. But this time of year, next few months, the woods in Florida tend to be a tad unbearable, even for hard core woods addicts such as Sir Foghorn. So it appears I'm on the hunt for young butts to kick, except that I'm too old to kick them in person, so I have to settle for a simulation.

I got a bit of a bully thing going on here. Not that pretty actually.

Foghorn

I agree the topic was a prop, but not because it was hiding ‘conflict addiction’( why do non-political topics on this site normally not generate the same heat?) — Joshs

That's a good question, thanks. Yes, what makes political topics so much more prone to testosterone hysteria? Don't have a ready answer...

The middle east was a proxy for issues much closer to home, having to do with our relationships with people in our own communities. — Joshs

Like ourselves perhaps? Dunno. Have anything particular in mind?

skyblack

I agree the topic was a prop, but not because it was hiding ‘conflict addiction’( why do non-political topics on this site normally not generate the same heat?). — Joshs

Not my circus not my monkeys but just a quick view, perhaps irrelevant. If one looks at auxiliary evidence i will have to agree on the conflict addiction point. And also based on the same evidence disagree on the "non-political topics" point. Like i said in a previous post, i have visited that thread only once and from what i saw, borrowing the phrase from 'bitter crank', it appears in that case the "central committee" was fueling the conflict. And from evidence it seems the central committee or at least a part of it is doing it at other places. Just a cent, perhaps not relevant.

Joshs

↪Foghorn

Ok, here’s my take: We’re not addicted to conflict, we’re addicted to sense-making, and it drives us crazy when someone spouts off with an opinion that sounds completely outrageous to us. And nonsense that affects people’s lives, which falls into the general category of politics, drives us the most crazy , and draws us deepest down the rabbit hole.

Foghorn

I'm not sure exactly the degree to which I suffer from conflict addiction. Maybe I'm just a typoholic?

Foghorn

it appears in that case the "central committee" was fueling the conflict. — skyblack

I hear what you're saying, some truth to it, but I just ain't going there. Doing so might interfere with my typoholic addiction. If this is unclear, ok, good. :-)

skyblack

I hear what you're saying, some truth to it, but I just ain't going there. Doing so might interfere with my typoholic addiction. If this is unclear, ok, good — Foghorn

:-)

I hear you, thankfully that's not a fear i suffer from.

Joshs

↪skyblack

Not my circus not my monkeys — skyblack

It’s possible that it seems to you that a vacuous ‘addiction to conflict’ motivated the arguments precisely because you were not invested in the topic. If you think about topics where your ‘circus and monkeys ‘ were at stake , would you attribute such motives to yourself?

Foghorn

We’re not addicted to conflict, we’re addicted to sense-making, and it drives us crazy when someone spouts off with an opinion that sounds completely outrageous to us. — Joshs

Ok, that seems a reasonable theory. It's complex for sure.

To counter, why do we so often deliberately seek out the experience of being driven crazy?

skyblack

It’s possible that it seems to you that a vacuous ‘addiction to conflict’ motivated the arguments precisely because you were not invested in the topic. — Joshs

That's an incorrect assumption. The truth is i already knew what to expect (human nature) so never even bothered to look at the thread. Had i been proven wrong in my estimation of human nature i would have liked to participate.

Foghorn

It’s possible that it seems to you that a vacuous ‘addiction to conflict’ motivated the arguments precisely because you were not invested in the topic. — Joshs

I saw only one member of that thread that seemed actually sincerely invested in the topic itself, due to his personal real world relationships with some of those involved in the conflict. And he was generally the sanest and most mature of the lot of us. Go figure?

Joshs

↪Foghorn

why do we so often deliberately seek out the experience of being driven crazy? — Foghorn

For the same reason we like thrill rides and horror movies, so we can learn how to cope better with the demons and threats that we already know are out there’s, are always in the back of our mind and infiltrate our dreams nightly.

skyblack

@Joshs

And by my circus and my monkeys, i meant this thread.

skyblack

In all humility of course. Just stating a fact.

Joshs

↪Foghorn

his personal real world relationships with some of those involved in the conflict. And he was generally the sanest and most mature of the lot of us. — Foghorn

I wonder if his friends, the ones involved in the conflict, are infuriated by his impartiality.

skyblack

I wonder if his friends, the ones involved in the conflict, are infuriated by his impartiality. — Joshs

Impartiality is a great quality in my books.But one needs a bit of stature for that. I only took a quick look at couple of pages so have not seen this impartiality. Perhaps when i have some time it will be good to identify it's presence on that thread.

skyblack

@Joshs

On what page (no.) can i see that evidence?

T Clark

Without The Philosophy Forum, and publications like the NYT, NPR, PBS, et al to contain this bubbling cauldron of controversy, bloodbaths would be a daily event. That might be a good thing were there adequate ideological oversight and guidance by the Central Committee, but alas there is not. — Bitter Crank

Come on. You know the Philosophy Forum has a bimodal membership structure. One group, including you and me, are old coots who wonder what's going on with kids these days, because when we were young things were much better and now it's going to hell in a hand basket. This group rarely if ever leaves their houses, apartments, or old folks homes. The other group is depressive, reclusive younger people who live too much in their own heads. This group rarely leaves their apartments or parent's basements.

Whatever happens, the Republic is safe, at least from us.

Conflict Addiction

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions