You can see proof of how hard it is every day in endless debates between people with no stake, only strong opinions.
Things become more complicated when you have a stake in a project, because then your words and actions are backed by its' power. And if you have a strong opinion and a high-enough stake you can easily ignore the opposite side.
But should you? Will you?
Positions of force, top-down hierarchical decision systems are strongly disputed as the best way to move forward. In fact, their top quality, the efficiency or swiftness of the decision process, is also disputed. Instead, collaborations, decisions in consensus have risen as an alternative and inclusive governance systems, which show results today and will probably begin to be more wide spread in the future.
But what happens if you are in a collaborative and consensus-based environment and you have a high enough stake that your opinion (backed by it) would be almost a veto?
Well, if you like to show muscles, you veto a lot. And we get back to the position of force above.
If you value the environment where you have your stake in, you want it to grow as many and thicker "tentacles" as possible. You want it to be able to grow without your direct involvement at some point in the future. You won't pick a side when there will be internal disputes. The environment should grow strong enough to handle its own conflicts and problems.
Where you can help, you do it. But if that looks like picking a side, it's probably bad, unless there is no way to settle something that threatens the integrity of the environment.
That would be a position of neutrality, in this context.
Is this easy? Not by a long-shot, because we can bet if one has the power of a veto and an opinion, it's very, very, hard to stay on the sidelines and look at the dwarfs fight. But it shows a great deal of control, the kind where you have a lot of power in your hands and don't start granting yourself and friends wishes.
