Thoughts on the Political Costs of Disagreements

I often think about conflicts on the blockchain, because as you know, there is always a potential consequence on STEEM if you disagree with someone. This is to say that the system of incentives, it's political layers and what have you, are design for people to want to be nice to each other. Yes, sometimes the niceness is faked or emulated if you will, but I submit to you that for the most part, it's actually quite real.

All this to say that as much as I understand the advantage of being polite to each other, there is also a necessity mind you for disagreements, and this is very true at all levels. Discourse as we know is nothing but a tool for polishing arguments and points of view, and without the battle of ideas none of the luxuries we enjoy today would even exist. Of course, there are ways to disagree, there are efficient methods of discourse, and none efficient ones, but the key point to understand is that there is no growth when we purposely surround ourselves only with "yes people".

The complicated political system that makes up the STEEM ecosystem however, is conducive to the obfuscation of opposing point of views. It's not uncommon for example for witnesses of all rankings mind you, to believe that the only way to stay at the top, or make it to the top is to always agree with the powerful. I guess I understand this line of thinking and somewhat agree, but at the same time I submit to you that it's only true because we have forgotten how to disagree effectively.

I've seen at this point quite a few people who believe that STEEM's whales are unreasonable. This is to say that if you were to approach them with your ideas, with your disagreement, they would surely ignore you or worse. To an extend I understand where they are coming from, simply because some of the exchanges lack diplomatic proficiency and thus result in emotional battles that make up the popcorn show we are all very familiar with these days. But, is this always the case? Can I disagree with Ned, with Bernie, with Transito, or anyone of power without risking my livelihood in some way? am I gagged by the fear of consequence?

The point I'm making here, or at least the point I'm trying to convey to you is that in my view most of the influential characters of this platform will respect someone who is not only able to disagree respectfully, but also be willing to listen to their counter points with intent. This is to say that it's not enough for me to say that a certain person is wrong, but it's also important for me to acknowledge the valid points they are making as to find the point of compromise, which of course is always present.

If however, the word compromise makes you cringe, if you believe that options are binary, then I will say you may not be cut to sit at the table of political discourse. Why? Because as with many other things in this world, binary choices are short sighted and for the most part inapplicable.

To me the ability to compromise, to listen to the other side and find that point of collaborative synergy is the most important trait a leader of this platform should display. And if I'm to be completely honest, the most important trait I would look for in anyone I would call a leader.

Of course we must pick our battles, of course not every battle/argument is worth fighting for. But, as as important as it may be to speak up when we must, it's also just as important to know how to do so. It's precisely because of this that I commend Exyle's recent attitude, and hope that he keeps it up. In my view he's showing what it means to actually care, which is precisely what this community needs at this very moment.