So, why then? Why paint that target, when I clearly know it will happen? Because, as I've stated before in a number of my other posts, the neutral ground is a path to resolution, and I know, even as I read that myself, even that statement can cause problems. Doesn't make it more or less true, however, despite the extremes either way.
I've often been asked, sometimes even criticized for, why I do so much with video games. The answer surprisingly fits here as well: outside of the extremes, the rules of games are clearly defined in what is and is not possible. You can start up a game, so long as it is neither already broken or with intention to break, and understand how to play, if with some tutorials. Plus, the rules of the games, in their own worlds, often make sense, if with that stretch of the so called "game logic".
This similarity is why I write today. Just as with games, the rules are defined until you get to the extremes, and it is the blurriness of the extremes that we see spun everywhere today. Yes, there are peaceful protests. Yes, there are violent officials. But, to both, there are also the violent riots and the officers who simply want to make it home at the end of the day. This is why I feel like my neutral ground is so important, a haven, if you will, for those getting painted, whether rightly or wrongly, as being one side or the other.
Because for as much as people say this either is or isn't about color, both of the extremes seem to be seeing an awful lot of red.
Just a penny's worth of thoughts, lost in the chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment