No success or failure, no wrong or right, no in or out, no dark or bright.
Animals the less intelligent most call, aren’t so nimble they’d reason why they’ve ended their last meal’s life. Some of them torment for the entertainment, never seen a cat have at a moth?
A human’s cells aren’t much different from an animals, argue the technicalities I’m thinking blurred viewpoint here. The most intelligent humans capable of killing for pleasure, this is a tragedy we argue.
Lets not forget the evils happening around us we hear nothing of. Technology was planted and grew into a vine of information everyone can harvest quickly. This harvest is packed with assorted juicy celebrity gossip, historical monuments and murders, wars, baptisms, weddings, funerals, sexual intercourse.
The information is released we can’t say we’re not curious, the confrontation comes when you take it upon yourself to reroute the story of “tragedy” or whatever mass impact story with your opinion attached. This is unsolicited gossip and we must learn to pin point and remove it prior to letting our mouths/hands state it for redistribution.
We’ve got this unremarkable energy that’s easiest controlled face to face. This energy is affected by objects, environments, other people’s energy manipulation (doing what your opinion deems positive or negative actions). When I see a digital situation/story I want to share, I learned I shouldn’t attach how I feel. I know how I feel, and the lack of my controlling the energy intended with my words may steer a conversation in an undesired direction. Even with control in my voice’s tone within my string of words the conversation may end in a negative place. I don’t want to increase the chance of people mistaking my words for intention to guide the story in a biased way, and this chance is increased with words people must interpret the energy of themselves.
I’ve learned my opinion attached to these stories is wrong unless the person blatantly agrees with my opinion and they’ll still probably add the small parts they’d refute about it. To avoid conversations getting too personal I’ve begun posting my stories with absolutely no opinion, I’ve dealt with half the arguments I used to.
I think the arguments come with people trying to out-do one another’s understanding, or if one person feels less privileged than the other in the circumstance.
This is an example of the rants you can find in my deepest diaries but this one felt right for my digital journal. I don’t know how other people feel about it, I dislike arguing so I take the precautions I can. Some people say that’s just conversation but in person my conversations don’t reach the levels of slang enriched intensity they do on the internet. People forget what they’re saying, though digital, still has meaning. They give their comments little thought so feel it has little meaning, but when interpreted by someone else…
We can try to change others’ opinions but if we don’t, we’re wrong to one another… it shouldn’t be that way but it is. What’s great about physical interaction is controlling that energy and finding a good medium opinion. Digitally that medium is incredibly hard to achieve without correct explanation of intended interpretation of one another’s words.