If I set any rules for my blog it would’ve had to be that I write what I want to write. Over the past year, that has proven quite successful at producing content regularly, and I was very satisfied with it.
My last post kinda followed on from the post before it, but I don’t think I mentioned that that post (the hurdle one) had people talking about it in-game, to me and to others. I suppose such a post will do that. Anyway, I was a little scared by the attention, mainly because I felt the message wasn’t being interpreted properly. So I tried to address it in my next post.
In doing so, when writing the follow-up, I found myself asking “what do the viewers want to read/what do I want the viewers to read?” I lost the essence of my blog in that moment, because I wasn’t thinking about what I wanted from the post, only what I could use to correct other people’s views of the post prior to it.
People still call me immature even always disagreed with them silently, but sometimes, reading back, I do see the immaturity there, seeping through the cracks of my carefully crafted internet armour.
But y’know, getting spicy about the events in EVE Online, to some degree, is healthy.
But the way I go about it… I’ll try to explain. Whenever I sense that a serious argument is about to take place, I try to cover all the bases. Now, some may say that’s a good thing. Perhaps. To fully understand, let me take a slight detour into the debating world.
There is a term used in debating called a ‘squirrel’. Usually used by the opening side of a debate, the first speaker squirrels when he or she defines the topic or a term in the topic in a way that makes it too advantageous for his/her side, because they get to mould the topic into something they make have prepared for beforehand, or something the opposition would have a hard time arguing against.
With this in mind… let’s keep going. I use this weak way of defending your arguments, because I’ve ‘unbalanced the playing field’, so to speak, and it implies that I need the imbalance to win. When I consider retorting or arguing a point, if I’m thinking like I normally do, I will generally avoid speaking absolutely, use vague terms (‘maybe’s), and refrain from having a strong opinion. If I do express something strongly, then I will go out of my way to also mention the other possibilities and other sides. Perhaps its because I’m introverted, and like to do all my thinking myself. Perhaps it’s my education which keeps reminding me to question and question even more. Who knows. The fact of the matter is I’ve realised this shell I construct around myself doesn’t make discussion much fun. If you’ve left nothing for your opponent to attack or latch onto, and anything from a casual conversation to a full-blown argument is rendered boring.
When I look at my last two posts, I see my methods in action. My first post, I unintentionally let myself favour one side too much, and then in the following post, I backtrack and take it all back. In the end, no progress is made.
I wonder if that means I’m just an empty shell, and all my dreams and desires are insignificant wisps that, if I so desired, I could erase as easily as I conjured them.
… You know, this is why I wish I had immortality. I wouldn’t hesitate to ponder just that thought for a few months before moving on. But the grains of time slip between my clutching fingers nevertheless, so I shan’t dwell. In future, I’ll try to stop closing off all avenues of discussion just because I feel threatened. But I also need to keep in mind not to let my readers take control of what I post, despite how extensive the discussions could get. It’s a bit of a gnarly issue because fixing the former could lead to a bigger problem with the latter. Ah, so much to experience.