afjkndghkjfghasjzxcnbbnlkp
N O T I C E : : m e m o r y _ s t r e a m _ l o c a t e d
I D : : C o n f l i c t
T Y P E: : R E C O L L E C T I V E
Conflict is such a strange thing... I'd personally consider it the defining characteristic of living beings' existence; the forceful disagreements that come about as a result of opposed desires, wants, needs, or beliefs. It's something that I view as fundamental to any kind of relationship between two organisms which are both possessed of independent agency, and my personal view is that it could never be abolished entirely without fundamentally changing the way that living beings operate.
I don't think that conflict is inherently bad. The fact that people are willing to resort to force and engage in harmful behaviour if they think it is important enough to do so can be testament to the strength of their beliefs, and I think that can be highly warranted in some cases; but it depends very much on what the conflict is over, and the scale of the actions taken by either side. For an example of something on the less warranted end of the spectrum: Two people getting into a fight over the last remaining bowl of
sanchum berries in their fridge is quite silly, and it would almost certainly not be justified to go any further than a light spot of bickering over who should be the one to get the bowl.
Now, for an example on the other side: The situation in which just about the highest level of violence or conventionally 'immoral' activity can be considered justified is in attempts by slaves or other oppressed peoples to overthrow their oppressors. In these situations, depending on how poorly an oppressed group is being treated, anything up to murder and beyond can be entirely justified for the purpose of obtaining liberation. While this particular example is highly controversial (mostly among dweebs who think you can achieve systemic change without the use of violence), it's generally agreed-upon that there exist criteria in which inflicting harm or using violence is justified.
Now, the part where my own views diverge from those of others is where the line is drawn. Generally speaking, most landamaeris don't like getting into fights with other people if they can avoid it; even ones limited to verbal grounds, which is what I'm going to be primarily talking about from this point on. People don't like getting into arguments because it can be painful, frightening, upsetting, or otherwise uncomfortable; and put simply, these are all things which we're naturally inclined to dislike. With that in mind, it's not really surprising at all that the prevailing sentiment among Fleetists and
ch'ikan is that one ought to be respectful and non-confrontational when engaging in disagreements, so as to avoid hurt feelings.
The issue with this view, however, is that individual people have widely different views on how important certain things are. Something that one person considers trivially important can be a matter of the utmost significance to another person, and so the latter individual can be inclined to argue fiercely about it, while the first one wouldn't understand at all why it's worth getting that heated over. This can lead to situations where one person thinks that it's worth arguing and inflicting discomfort on another person because an issue is important to them, while the other person doesn't view it as important, and so takes affront to what the other person is doing and considers their actions rude and-or inappropriate.
This is where we get to the major problem, I find. Society at large has decided that, rather than adopting a nuanced view on this issue, it's better to say that one simply "shouldn't be rude when disagreeing with other people" and should always "remain civil" in discussions with them. The prevailing view among Fleetists is that you should tolerate the views of people that you disagree with, no matter how harmful they are, because it's The Right Thing To Do. Many Fleetists are stupid enough to even extent this to hardliners that advocate for the deportation or murder of xenos; saying rubbish like that "just because these people are violent doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level to stop them, and doing that would make us no better than them." To anyone with a brain, this is obvious clown shit, but it is astonishing how many indoctrinated people uncritically believe things like this.
I take issue with the underlying premise more than this specific problem, though. I don't really like the idea that just because something is inherently uncomfortable, that makes it bad or otherwise unjustified. In many cases, people who have harmful or indirectly-damaging beliefs about things refuse to change them when confronted politely. Lots of people would say that they're in the wrong not to do so, but would also say that you shouldn't go so far as to use harsh words to try and force them to change their position. The question is, though, where do you draw the line? The answer is arbitrary, but it's also something that has a general threshold among
ch'ikan society, and it's not a threshold that I agree with.
Our system has been steeped in conflict since childhood. Teachers scolding us because we weren't behaving properly in their view at every stage of school, other children mocking and bullying us for behaving outside of the norm in an attempt to get us to stop doing so, and all the endless harassment and aggression that one faces online for being any flavour of queer. We've spent so much of our lives engaged in vicious confrontation with others that we've learned how to still our heart during it, and it doesn't hurt us in the way that it once did any more. We've also gotten very, very good at it; and we know both how to make a point, and how to hurt other people when we want to.
Everything that we were picked upon for that I just mentioned was a complete waste of time, and it was incorrect of those people to damage us for those reasons; yet in spite of that, we've grown and become much stronger than we would otherwise because of it. I don't believe that we ever held any beliefs that were in severe need of correcting, but the way we were forced to adapt and become more resilient in response to our environment isn't something that I resent at all. The skills we developed in dealing with all of those lowlives are the central part of what allowed me to become Rukhmar the Firebird, and I now use them to protect my loved ones, and encourage them to employ force where necessary to secure their own wellbeing.
In the end, pain is simple electrochemical responses in the mind; the exact same as pleasure, only inverted. It has no innate meaning in and of itself- for as much as the same could be said of any other experience had by sapient beings. I won't pretend to have a consistent opinion on this topic, because I don't, but I have decided that it is worth harming other people in order to bring their beliefs into line with what I believe to be appropriate, when the belief in question has the potential to do harm if not corrected.
Though, for all that this is the case, I know we as a system do go too far at times. It is just incredibly difficult to tell what is an unwarranted instance of hostility, and what is simply the crying out of those upon whom we are rightly inflicting pain in an attempt to get us to stop.
It is an unpleasant burden, and I wonder at times whether we are at all well-suited for it. In the same vein, I also wonder whether it might not be better for us to simply seclude ourselves in a dark corner of the world, and leave all other people to their own fate.
We are, after all, so little alike to them.
What purpose is there in us attempting to be a part of their society?
They will never understand us, and we will never understand them.
It would be better for us to accept our role as an outcast,
as a thing of the forest and the wilderness,
and to simply watch them from the branches as they tear themselves apart
while we and our loved ones stay safe in our perch up high.
Perhaps it would be better if I just abandoned them all to their fate. They didn't ask for me to help them, after all, and what can it be said that I have actually done that has affected good; if anything whatsoever? ...It would be so much easier to just selfishly seclude myself away; take whatever things I require from them, and dispose of all concern for their wellbeing. I wish for a nest, with only myself and my loved ones. Far, far away from all the noise and the strife and the petty squabbling of others; where we will live free of all that they would impose upon us...
...And yet, I still cannot quite bring myself to give up on them entirely. For there was a time when each of my loved ones were not my beloved, and were just members of that vast mass. I therefore cannot deny that there would be others out there who I would hold the same affection for, and to abandon them as well would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
But, again: does it really matter if in the end, despite my intent to do good, my actions cause only useless pain?
I do not know. I do not know the answer...
afjkndghkjfgvhxasjzxcnbbnlkp
N O T I C E : : m e m o r y _ s t r e a m _ t e r m i n a t e d
