Averland

personal opinions are thrust across every aspect of the internet.  obviously, the nature of a cyber public forum is to assert one’s thoughts and ideas.  often without any filter or censorship, anybody with access to the web can offer their perspective.  if you’re in the mood for a good mature debate, you can seek an innumerable amount of sites that host dialogue between strangers.  other times, when you’re merely checking the updates of your friends on an online social network, it’s their opinions with which you’re forced to contend.  one can often ignore the petty discussions of pop stars’ private lives or reality television, but when political and religious issues are bandied as frequent as rockets and bombs, it’s hard not to become involved.  i don’t intend to add to the fire; i won’t attempt to persuade or convince anyone of anything.  there are thousands of impassioned voices crying for an audience online, speaking for those that can’t be heard above the din of war.  viewing friends’ daily postings with links to various news sources and intellectual thinkers and historians, i notice the divide between my contacts.  it seems impossible to be objective; much like the conflict itself, everyone squarely falls on one side of the fence or the other.  in the end, where most territorial disputes are able to resolve with a semblance of fairness and closure, this quagmire of deep-seated distrust appears eternally confrontational.  i miss the days when Team Jen Vs. Team Angela was the hot button issue.