But not for the deathglow attacks. Or for any attacks. He was shot for spying. There was no trial. No evidence. Just footage of a man being shot—empty propaganda just like the Black Eagles use.
And yes, Harkon Thorsen made a big splashy statement. That doesn’t mean he did anything. If anything, the apparent fact that the Deathglow was delivered by via a military munition indicates it’s not the actions of people who ‘aren’t equipped for an open war’.
Hmm … ah-- not necessarily?
Like, my sect recognizes four duties as inherent in being human: humility, moderation, curiosity, and compassion. They’re all meant to be taken together; Morgana Tsukiyo, with whom you’ve maybe noticed I don’t get along, exemplifies curiosity but kind of tosses everything else down the disposal chute.
Those aren’t duties I have to anyone in particular, though they’re kind of ingredients in being a decent person. So, in a way, they’re duties to everyone I come in contact with, or maybe just to myself if I want to be a benefit and not a blight (keeping in mind that if I’m a blight, my own life will likely be one of the things blighted; people who spread suffering are often also suffering themselves).
They’re also not absolute; they don’t automatically override all other duties. My duty to so-and-so might require me to shoot such-and-such a person, and my duties as a human being don’t override that duty (though in some extreme cases, they might).
But even if my duty to kill is completely clear, if I want to be a decent person, I should still show compassion: I should make it quick, clean, and painless, if I can.
Does that sound similar?
It seems as if there are differing understandings of the word ‘Duty’.
Words have more than one meaning, causing cultural misunderstandings.
Call Gutter Press !
Well … I suppose my working definition would be: “Something someone is supposed to do.”
Any difference?
The flurry of posts in recent days, about the treatment of surrendered enemy forces, illustrates why capsuleers should generally not be allowed to command ground forces.
Could be just translation ■■■■ up of terminology there.
For me, there are characteristics of a person that are andesh, proper. They are not so much something someone should do or has a duty to do but maybe something akin to “virtue”.
These are somewhat difficult to translate, but the virtue of [translator: mercy, compassion, generosity l also: shelter, protection] is the one that would apply here. It is andesh to not cause undue suffering.
The other three main virtues are [translator: self-reliance, independence, freedom], honor, and power, and these form a circle of sorts: power is nothing if not used to protect, and mercy is nothing if its price is freedom. (And to complete the circle: independence is nothing if not used with honor, and honor is nothing without the power to uphold it.)
It’s just a statement, not trying to be cool or anything. It’s closer to a joke post that supports the decision of the original poster rather than me trying to fluff my own ego. But more importantly: look how many likes it got. HELL YES
I don’t know that there is such a thing as a Republic concept or consensus on that sort of thing. I can tell you (and I’m sure Anna will rage endlessly at me if I say anything she or her uncle disagree with) the analog I grew up with. It may or may not be similar to Elsebeth’s understanding of such things. After all, different Clans.
For us, it’s a matter of mutual commitment and obligation. I’ve spoken before how we see our obligations, and I think even how that stems from our old territories in the north, and only increased in importance once we made the move to a space-based Clan. Life outside of any semi-natural biosphere is, after all, entirely built on interdependence.
Now, a lot of it… I mean, a lot of it… is about our obligations to the Clan as itself, as the whole of it. But within that is also our individual obligations to one another as parts of the Clan, and through that, our obligations as part of the Clan to one another as individuals.
And that’s what it kind of comes down to, for us: individually, we’re not really all that much, but the Clan is made of individuals, so individuals are important, and have value, because without each of us… there is no ‘us’. So people need to be cared for. Looked after. Their needs have to be met. And those needs aren’t just food, shelter, water, and physical health. It’s also emotional and mental health… that’s especially important when you’ve got generations upon generations living in an overgrown steel canister.
A big, big part of that emotional and mental health comes down to treating people with the kind of respect as human beings that you’d want to be treated with. Mistreating people causes problems within the group. It always has, and it always will. Limiting peoples’ agency even a single iota more than is absolutely necessary is in that category. When you tell people ‘you can’t do this’, there has to be a clear, compelling reason. Otherwise, you’re asking for trouble and internal strife.
Satisfaction’s a big chunk of it, too: people need to be able to feel a sense of self-worth, and satisfaction with the efforts they put forth and the recognition they receive. Moreover, they need to be able to determine for themselves what course they’ll pursue to seek that satisfaction. Funneling people into pre-determined roles may work for some, but for many, it simply leads to depression and a simmering discontent. In cultures that funnel everyone into those pre-determined roles, people may never realize what they’re experiencing. It will just seem a general malaise, a sense of listlessness and resigned resentment that they can never quite identify.
Frankly, I’ve seen that a lot in people in and from the Empire. They get irritable and frustrated easily, always just that little bit angry and tense, and never quite knowing why. Even when they’re happy—joyous, even—there’s that nagging sense that someone is about to intrude into their happiness and snatch it all away. That’s not healthy, and it doesn’t serve the collective good.
Maybe for some folks, that’ll feel… shallow, or facile, and it probably is. But I’m trying to convey the broad strokes of concepts that… well, to take a cue from Elsebeth’s book and fall back into our own patois, it’s a sense of [translator: symbiosis, reciprocity, interdependence, communal caregiving]. And I don’t think just saying… well, to bypass the translator, “samhjálmön” would really be helpful to your understanding.
Yes; and I should have added that, things are andesh, in accordance to Fate, when they create individuals that create societies and groups that are andesh. My independence is not important because my independence is of particular importance or “a right”; it is important because without it I cannot be fully part of my networks and support them.
Oh, neat! We actually usually call those duties I mentioned the “four virtues”!
It seems like our conception of duty might not be so different. Our idea of what the virtues are seems to differ a lot, though. [Mercy/compassion/generosity] I think there’s no meaningful difference on.
Honor, to me, isn’t itself a duty; it’s more like a descriptor for someone who does well in upholding their various duties, similar to calling someone “virtuous.” I’d love to hear more about how it works as a virtue in its own right.
[Self reliance/independence/freedom] seems like something the Caldari are particularly big on, but only as it applies to themselves collectively as a people. Avio Yaken does well at representing it as an individual, but I’m not sure most of the State would consider him virtuous exactly (you know, helping out the Guristas, etc.).
Power … eep? I apologize, but even seeing that (even with the awareness that it’s considered useless if not used to protect) makes me anxious. It doesn’t seem to me like power does very good things to most of those who have a lot of it. I often look at the power I have and wonder what it’s doing to me that I can’t even see. … But probably that looks different in another context, and it’s definitely true that power matters.
Maybe it’s just seeing so much of the discussion of “power” as an abstract concept turning up in a Sabik or Sabik-inspired context that gives me the creepy-crawlies.
I see … this sounds a lot like “duty” at a glance, but your discussion seems also to recognize something similar to “rights”? Am I reading this right, Arrendis?
Hm. Maybe those two concepts don’t need to be distinct…? Although … hm.
Rights… hrm.
While I can use it as a shorthand, ‘rights’ feels like a Gallente concept of ‘you are entitled to these things’, you know? Like ‘you exist, therefore you are entitled to liberty, you are entitled to speak your mind, you are entitled to have your opinion considered’.
And, you know… that’s kinda stupid. I mean, I’m sorry to anyone here from the Fed, but I think that’s kinda stupid. I do. Should people have agency? Should people be able to speak their mind? Should people consider the opinions of others? Sure. But it’s not something anyone should consider themselves entitled to.
People should have agency because only they can determine what truly makes them happy and fulfilled. And I don’t mean ‘only you can decide what you want to do with your life’. I mean ‘only you can decide whether or not that thing you are doing right now makes you happy and fulfilled’. If it gives satisfaction. And that matters because the things that give us satisfaction are the things we will strive to excel in.
People should have the ability to speak their mind and have their opinions considered because that is the best way to ensure a robust, open exchange of ideas, no matter how crazy or fringe, and it is through that open, robust process of letting everyone’s brains bounce off of one another that innovation takes place. That doesn’t mean people should expect to be able to require people to listen to them, or that foolish opinions should not be told to STFU. But we cannot judge an opinion to be one that should be ignored if we don’t let them say it.
These things are not rights. They are obligations we have to one another so that the whole may enjoy the benefits they bring. To put it into a framework you might find more familiar: You do not have a right to speak your mind. I have a duty to let you.
This was the crux of my argument, actually.
Perhaps, but it seemed like you were presenting it as an end unto itself. ‘People should be free because they should be free’, rather than ‘People should have self-determination because that’s the best way they serve society’.
More like ‘people should have agency because that’s the best way for them to fulfill their roles among society’. As in, remove the sense of any duty to society.
But as always, you and everyone else were all too happy to fill in what you thought I meant and dismiss it as ‘oh, he’s just being Gallente again’–which itself is only a half-true assertion.
Well, first off, congratulations, welcome to ‘how the human brain works’. The brain’s a pattern-matching engine. It recognizes patterns, seeks them out, and tries to anticipate them. That is literally how it does… everything. That’s even how you do math and logic: you’ve learned patterns, and then you apply them. So good job recognizing that.
But no, I wasn’t making an assumption about your meaning, I was describing how it appeared. That’s different than saying ‘this is what you meant’. Instead, I was saying ‘this is what your statements led people toward’. If you don’t want people’s brains to fill in the gaps in the patterns, please be clear when you communicate. You may have seen me write this before, but: the reader is never a mind reader. It is on the writer to be clear. The reader cannot know things about your meaning that you don’t tell them.
All that said… I categorically disagree with the idea that we should remove the sense of any duty to society. That way lies anarchy and rampant cruelty. You’d end up with large numbers of people who are interested only in their own immediate gratification, and hell-bent on gaining whatever power they need to take the things they want. Basically… Blood Raiders.
Or you can ask for clarification.
Any one of us might think we’re being perfectly clear, and it isn’t until things start to snowball that we recognize otherwise.
Or kind acts and generosity.
In my experience, human beings are fundamentally inclined to help each other, even only if (in some cases) they do so because helping others helps themselves.
Regardless, assuming that removing duty from the equation results in Blood Raiders is a rather large jump to make.
To me it’s also a very cynical and hopeless view to have, and I doubt I could make it through a day if I carried such a belief with me, so kudos to you, I suppose.
We only have control over the words we use, not on how people perceive those words. Arrendis’ post was arguing that she and possibly others, perceived your words in a particular manner, and I admit to agree with her perception.
Reading through all this talk makes me feel that you people really overcomplicate things.
Somehow I doubt that those who started the Minmatar Rebellion thought of it as “Let’s have self-determination because that’s the best way we can serve society”. They just had enough, they suffered, they wanted to be free, and they took their freedom by force because they could. That’s enough of a motivation.
And their descendants maintain this freedom to this day, opposing the Empire, a cause I gladly help.
Noone is entitled to anything.
But a free man is better than even a well-fed slave.
For a revolution, yes. For understanding the role self-determination plays in a persistent, cohesive society? Not so much.
Yeah, ‘Because Empire bad! RAR!’ isn’t exactly a solid grounding for… anything, really.
Why? I didn’t need clarification. I didn’t care what you were trying to say, I was making a statement about what you appeared to be saying and how other people interpreted it. My statement wasn’t about your intent at all, it was about what was presented, and how that presentation was received. I don’t need to know why you chose to paint with the colors white and blue to say ‘this conveys a cooler feeling than reds and oranges would have’.
Indeed. And when that happens, most of ‘us’ will immediately start shouting 'YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN’ despite the fact that clearly, they didn’t.
Sometimes, yes. We’re primates. We have a strong drive toward social behaviors and mutually-beneficial frameworks. We also have a strong drive toward rigid hierarchies and huddling together under the ‘protection’ of a strong, absolute leader until someone else beats that leader up, and then we huddle together under that leader’s ‘protection’.
Just like, you know, Blooder ships still have crews. Not everybody’s the captain.
On the contrary, it’s a worldview that lets me avoid depression and impotent rage, and generally live as a cheerful, upbeat person. I’ve known people who insist that humanity is basically decent, but still have to live in this cluster. I’ve seen how quickly they become bitter and spiteful, all while still insisting that people are fundamentally good, dammit, even if they tend to rant about how everyone they’ve ever known has betrayed them in some way or turned out to be horrible crap of a human being.
Me? I expect people to be crap. I expect people to be horrible. They can’t disappoint me. I can’t be heartbroken over what terrible things they do to each other. And most of the time… people rise to the occasion and prove me wrong, giving me more reason to smile and be thankful, hopeful, and happy.
People are scum and filth, and the rat bastards keep insisting on proving me wrong. 