Not too long ago, I was working on a case where my client was being sued. Although technically in the wrong, the offense in question caused, at most, a negligible amount of damage. It looked bad, more than anything. But the plaintiff didn’t care–the relief they sought was ridiculously disproportionate compared to the harm, or lack thereof, actually caused.
This, of course, got my competitive juices flowing.
“So what do you think?” asked my boss.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” I said. “I want to fight it.”
“Think about a little more,” said my boss.
So I did. And he was right. But my first instinct was to fight it. That’s how it goes.
See, I have a conflicting impulse, which is to try to come to some sort of agreement.
It’s not that I’m conflict-averse per se. I just find it more pleasant to get what you want sans conflict.
Some might call this weak. Someone might call this unrealistic. I get that. But I can’t help it.
When I see or hear someone write or say something that is grossly unfair, realistic, or just a post something that I think is true and right, I would much rather talk about it then start throwing punches, metaphorical or otherwise.
But when I do, I come to the equally sobering conclusion that it’s pointless. It bears repeating, even though I’ve been beating this drum for a while, that if somebody comes at you in bad faith, there is no point in engaging the debate.
Even though I want to. Continue reading “Conflicting Impulses”