5 years of Capsuleer life

Fiction Portal Intergalactic Summit
,
21

If the end justify the means, but the means are the same and the ends are different, do you think the means justify the end too? Any difference about ruling a realm that you describe aren’t perceived from someone who’s out of the Amarr ethnic culture in general. The Minmatar, for example - but even some Gallente and also the Caldari, and think about Jovians too - : for most of them you are all fanatics who oppress cultures for the benefit of “non-them”. So, from their point of view, what’s the matter if the benefit is for god or for a savant? The arrogant practices look like always the same. The solution is educate them to comprehend those cultures around Amarr and how can you educate them if you just say that “Sani Sabik are bad and Amarr is good”? Repeating, there are other selfish thoughts in the Gallente Federation which have their part but they’re not prevalent because there’s an awareness that they aren’t the right way for a better future, but still, they persist. Maybe because they have some minimal good? Maybe because there’s the necessity to make them exist to show the people how bad are them and how avoid them? Why should you aggressively oppress them when the ignorant one isn’t capable to comprehend them risking to put it to the other side, making the ideology contrariarly grow?

This stuff make he remember the “Mad emperor”. A similar god would be followed by fanatics like him and he wasn’t even Sani Sabik.

22

The means aren’t the same, though.

The Amarr have a (long) history as conquerors, sure, and there are Amarr (House Sarum, notably) who don’t want that history to be over.

That’s a pretty far cry from a philosophy that selects its leaders (or, for Blood Raiders, line members) from those who are capable of anything.

I’ve seen their work, Mr. Lafisques, first-hand. In Sabik space, if you’re not a Savant, you’re a resource. At absolute best you’re a subject for whatever social experiments the Savant wants to run, at the mercy of your master’s whim; that’s how Kaztropol works, and that’s Dr. Valate and Queen Synthia. As Sabik go they’re pretty benign.

At worst you’re food and entertainment, or raw material.

And yes, that’s different from Amarr. Slaves here are sometimes mistreated, sometimes badly. But while I won’t say it’s rare or an aberration when it happens (humans of any society have a tendency to lack empathy for those of lower social rank, and it’s hard to find a sharper difference in rank than the one between slave and Holder), slaves are understood to be people. Needless human suffering is understood to be a bad thing.

For Sabik, there’s no such understanding.

That’s important. It’s meaningful in a way that can be hard to explain to someone who hasn’t seen it up close, at least without wallowing in lurid details you’d probably suspect I made up.

There are only two groups in this cluster I’d rather be dead than captured by. One is Sansha’s Nation; I shouldn’t need to explain why. The other is the Sani Sabik-- Blood Raiders, obviously, but also the other cults.

I’d sincerely rather be dead than reduced to one of their toys.

1 Like
23

…and this we understood it.

The problem is many others don’t, and consequently they continue to join to who’s considered “oppressed” or “silenced”; even the Sanshas, they literally prefer to let them kidnap for experiments, thinking to contribute for the “human progress”. Why? Are they stupid? Yes? No? Have they got the opportunity to see all the points of view?

During the Gallente-Caldari war, many preferred to join Caldari because brutally oppressed and discriminated. They literally preferred to submit to a megacorporation as a worker with literally the basic assets for survival and blind loyalty to a business man in name of “honor” and financial profit than joining to a government who should give you not only the means to live (and not only survive) but also the rights to defend them. Why? Were they stupid?

If you don’t absolutely tolerate a voice of a thought, some people won’t have access to it to be informed about (also) their dangerousness and you become the bad one. If you efficiently educate the population through many experiences and proofs about the successes of those ideologies, don’t worry that they will wisely choose to stay out of the bad ideas and embrace the good one. A good democracy needs aware people and that’s why neither the Federation manages to triumph is he continues to hate his adversaries.

Do you know which Gallente government expressed the best of its ideology? The one under Aidonis Elabon.

24

Because the average person totally has the time and capacity to fully assess and think through all the options available to them even when those options are a dizzying and ever-changing kaleidoscope.

Odd as it may sound I don’t really have much against the Federation. The whole project of self-rule is an interesting idea. I’d love to watch it succeed, even from far away. It’s part of why it hurts seeing it making such a mistake about the Sani Sabik. Loving variety and trying foods from all over the cluster isn’t a reason to swallow something poisonous or insist on eating something you’re deadly-allergic to.

And even if I kind of want to, I don’t share your faith in humanity. It seems to me that a lot of people are better suited to focusing on keeping the plumbing working and the fedos out of the air purifier than big policy decisions, and that asking those same people to select the people who will make the big policy decisions is just asking for trouble. For one thing they tend to select the person who reminds them most of themselves.

I’d be happy about being wrong about that, but I don’t think I am. And making a philosophy that’s both charismatic and fundamentally anti-society one of your society’s options seems likely to expand both the severity of possible bad outcomes and the likelihood of reaching them.

25

Humankind had its highs and lows, but having no faith in your same species leads to death. When there’s crisis, there’s also opportunity because “nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed”. If we consider everyone should have the opportunity to also simply try experience like even the politics and we also consider that our differences shape people who aren’t good for that but for, indeed, cleaning activities with fedos, which authority would have the capacity to value who’s good for a task and who’s good for another without showing oppressing features? Is that guy not good for politics? He will have a bad political campaign and people won’t remember it as a good one (Think about the Mad emperor, murdered by his same relative, or Tibus Heth, still wanted by the Megacorporations after messing in external and internal politics). Have those politics provoked damage? The thought, the people, the ideology adapts and evolves, shaping new people who won’t commit further mistakes. Further of them will be committed and the adaptation cycle continues. Regulating this would worse the situation; remember Zaragram II has been elected by “chosen people” (The Council of Apostles), not by the pleb.

Just the fact you are deadly-allergic to a “Sani-Sabik food” doesn’t mean that is for other people; also, they could be their medicine from some other worse poisons: Indifference, indolence, unilateralism, followed by depression, and maybe also death; all stuff for who hasn’t any belief, faith or any guiding principle of their own. Do you think your food is better than that? Go to recommend it, explaining the reasons.

Don’t think there would be an overload of ideologies for a person who wouldn’t have time and space to comprehend them all: Ideologies are created and then destroyed or adapted in new ones. The best ones are so spreaded that can be easily accessible to anyone so don’t worry to not have the opportunity to know them all.

26

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.