In the middle

Sometimes there are some battle royals that take place in Skypeland. Others will join in on one side or the other. This can cause the discussion to become a bit too chaotic for rational discourse, and impossible to allow information transfer. On the other hand, if some visitor to Skypeland is boldly stating that the Holocaust never happened, or that World War II never happened, or that all Jews should be killed, or that the US is the source of all evil in the world, then others in Skypeland might be excused for joining in.

There is a certain satisfaction to be derived from telling someone who claims that the government put mercury in vaccines for mind control purposes that they are stupid, and have no evidence to support their claims. It is even better to catch someone who claims that the US is the most racist nation on earth in a bit of hypocrisy. There is nothing like encountering a Muslim who has pleaded for hours that Muslims are all peaceful and want to live in peace with their neighbors, and then managing to get this same "peace-loving" Muslim so angry that he has stated he wants to kill all Jews, or Christians, or kaffirs, or Shiites, or Sunnis, or whatever.

However, some have a habit of trying to "settle" arguments by getting into the middle of things he does not understand. Here are some exaples of how G, a gentleman from Scanadanavia often manages to interfere:

X: Goddamn you fucking Jews, always whining about the Palestinians and behaving like Nazi thugs. You all should be put in the ovens.

Y: Hey X why don't you get fucked...

G: (interrupting) Y you bastard you talk too much. Stop fighting!

This is not the kind of thing that endears G to others in Skypeland. Here is another example:

M1: There is DNA from all of the people who died on 911 in government databases. Everyone knows that DNA decomposes at several hundred degrees fahrenheit and aluminum burns at 11,000 degrees. Therefore, 911 was clearly an inside job and you are a stupid fuck.

M2: Where is your evidence that the government has this DNA data ?

M1: (talking over M2 in an aggressive fashion) Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1. No one wants to hear what you ahve to say. Go away and scream some more.

M2: Where is your evidence? If this is true, why hasn't some major academic come out in support of your claims?

M1: (talking over M2 in a nasal whine) Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1. Shut the fuck up M1... Goddamn I hate Jews, filthy bastards and sons of bitches...

M2: M1, you fucking piece of shit, dirty greasy Arab...

G: (interrupting) Piss off M2, you talk too much. Stop fighting!

As you can imagine, this is not particularly helpful. It creates a certain image of the "peacemaker" G. What is particularly interesting, after watchng G trying to stop dozens of arguments, is that he seems to have a certain "bias" when he tries to get involved in fights, ostensibly to restore peace and calm. That is, G seems to favor certain people or groups or positions and demand that others sit quietly and take a stream of abuse and get lectured about nonsense.

However, G and others like him often are "hurt" and claim they do not understand when they develop certain negative images.

It is just not a great idea to get involved in a fight in most cases. However, those who want to adopt the mantle of "even-handedness" but then show evidence of serious bias really add to the problem, because it is sort of a sneaky way to support one position or another, or one group or another. If you must enter into an argument, I think it is better just to make it clear where you stand. Be honest about it.

In the words of that famous saying, "don't piss on my leg and try to tell me it is raining".