There is nothing revolutionary about the idea of having a healthy disagreement with someone, and as a matter of fact it's a pretty basic ability we should all try develop. I'm obviously flawed just like everyone else, and I would be lying if I said I've never felt emotional about one of my positions, but every time I've felt like reacting gutturally, I've taken a step back and asked myself if I was about to work against my own mission.
In other words, at times when we just get too heated, even if the message is somewhat correct, the words we chose are completely ineffective to convey them. They are wrapped in aggression, personal attacks, and thus miss the mark by miles.
WIthout a doubt not everyone is a diplomat, or has the social adeptness to calculate every phrase, but I also think many who partake of the verbal jousting do so without attempting to measure costs. Why would I make that assertion? Simply because the intellect is there, therefor I can't conclude ignorance, not really.
The Toxic Label
I've seen compelling arguments get dismissed simply with one magical move. If a Steemian with valid concerns is too emotional, yet has brought up some good points, the default move is to label him or her as toxic and completely invalidate everything that was said.
No doubt this can be frustrating and more often that not bring more resentment and somewhat feed a negative cycle of discommunication. I think that to some the fact that I would even use the word resentment is a little too much, but I don't believe it's out of place at all. There is a lot of emotional investment here and it's quite palpable, so to dismiss resentment is not be observant.
I've seen over and over again this very dynamic in action and from where I stand is quite frustrating, as questions go unanswered and sometimes great ideas get discarded. However, I'm not implying the one who "earns" the label, has earned it without merit, since the consequences of words we chose have always existed.
Passion is great but
It cant overrule reason, possibly not ever. And If I'm to be honest, that might exactly what I see happen more often than not. Passionate people allowing themselves to be fully express everything.
I think this is why I can sympathize with some of the members of this community that get labeled as toxic, because It also might be correct to label them as passionate. I certainly have changed my mind over the time I've been here on the nature of different characters, and have come to appreciate some of the ones who dismissed and labeled as "evil", comically enough.
Given the chance...
Our option to hide behind keyboards also allow us some extra room for letting loose, and I can accept that. But, I think it's important to know that behind the avatar and the silly nickname at times there is an actual human being who feels strongly about something.
I often think about all the different concerns I have regarding the future of this blockchain, the ideas that I personally believe could help it grow and regardless if I'm right or wrong, because that's not the point, these ideas have become a driver for this journey of mine.
So if I was given the chance to express them to someone of relevance, someone who has weight of change, I would hope that I can be as prepared as possible. I would hope that I could refrain from dirtying up the waters with emotional jargon and be as pragmatic as possible. However, that is just a mental exercise I practice daily and nothing more.
But, because it's always my intention to leave some food for thought behind as they say, let me ask you; If you were given the chance to talk to Ned, to talk to leadership, if they gave you a good 30 minutes of their time; Are you ready to do so? Would you want to? Do you actually have something constructive to say? Or you would just spend 30 minutes complaining?
You don't have answer me, who am I? I'm in the same boat you are. This question is for you, and you alone.