Hmmm. I'm thinking maybe "conflict" isn't the right word, perhaps. More like, tension, maybe? When the issue is still new enough that there are voices speaking up in outrage, and then you have new voices entering the fray to say, "how does this figure into a bigger picture?" That can be a type of digression, to introduce backstory and side issues and various details -- all of which do have a validity in that they shed light on the larger picture -- but are, in respect to the original voice-positions, digression from the narrower focus of the outrage. And I think it is valid for that first set of voices to see the second set as potential derailment, in a way. Both are valid, and both have use in the discussion, but when the timing is off, it creates a tension between the two positions, despite their underlying agreement.
no subject
Date: 2 Apr 2010 03:45 am (UTC)