Except that’s not what she’s saying. She’s not saying ‘this needs to be discussed and we should argue the merits of the incursion into Federation space’. She’s saying ‘look, this happened, it was wrong. We had perfectly understandable, relatable, human reasons for why we screwed up, but we screwed up. Now watch as everyone and their bloody grandmother rushes to tell us YOU WERE WRONG and lecture us about how our perfectly understandable reasons didn’t make us right.’
We know it wasn’t right. You don’t have to tell us it wasn’t right. We’ve made it abundantly clear that it was wrong, no matter how justifiable it might have felt at the time.
So right now, Aria, we’re at this point:
Us: ‘So this happened. It was wrong, but here’s why.’
Feds: ‘Yes, but now I must scold you and tell you you were wrong.’
Elsebeth (specifically, because she just said this): ‘I know it was wrong, and I’m not excusing it, stop treating me like an idiot child.’
You (specifically, because you just said this): ‘I’m going to ignore the fact that you said it was wrong so I can keep lecturing you on how it was wrong’.
THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PATRONIZING TONE PEOPLE TAKE WITH THIS CRAP. YOU ARE TAKING THAT TONE WHEN YOU IGNORE THE ACTUAL SUBJECT OF THE THREAD IN ORDER TO CONTINUE LECTURING US ABOUT A THING WE DID NOT DISPUTE.
For the record, I find it terrifying that the person who (best? the only person who?) understands wtf I am talking about is the goon Arrendis (*) Stjörnauga, but I guess that’s way above the experience where it was Gaven Lok’ri of PIE Inc.
(*) Insert of/from/whatever as appropriate and my apologies for not being aware of your customary clan address.
Is it okay? No, I don’t think it really is. It is problematic for international relations and a threat to peace.
Am I fine with it? Yes. You see; I was born and raised Matari, and not just that, but as a high-ranking member of a high-class business clan with way too many lawyers and inter-clan dealings. I am used to respecting the fact that other peoples have often bizarre and sometimes offensive beliefs and customs, and I strongly believe it is not my place to tell them to stop, as long as they do not go as far as classify as Enemy, and even then what it should boil down to is “I will shoot you if you continue that crap”, rather than “I think you are a terrible person for believing that”. (I admit I am not a saint so sometimes I fail.)
I can give them information on what their customs look like to me, but that’s it. If they insist they cannot change what they are doing to accommodate me and mine - well, that’s too bad. It might get inconvenient. Even dangerous. But personally, I am fine with it.
Actually, I completely understand the concept of guestright and what may happen if it is violated; some Holder courts still practice such customs. This is completely reasonable within a culture that has mutual understanding of the concept. Entire wars between houses are still fought if a dispute relating to it occurs, though rare and oft only in less cultivated areas in the Empire.
However, when relating to international affairs, there is little place for such notions. If one you care for suffers from a crime outside your nation’s rule of law, you abide by the local rule of law.
If you find this unsatisfactory, do what we do: make the place the crime occured part of your own jurisdiction. By conquest.
Help? I’m trying to keep my Empire out of wars of rediculous proportion. What you get up to is your own business; just beware of biting off more than you can chew. Do it properly if you’re going to become the Minmatar Empire.
It’s kind of why I keep saying things like ‘we need to buy more bullets’, yeah. I mean, don’t get me wrong, when I say ‘apology accepted’, I’m not saying I’m totally cool with it now, obviously, but… you know, just as obviously, I can’t fault the strategy behind it. Best way to win a war is ‘quickly, and without meaningful opposition’. So, you know, good job to your ancestors and all, strategically, but morally and as a general sense of the emotion here? Fek those guys, you know?
My ancestors were at best part of slave crews in the Imperial Navy at the time. We Ni-Kunni were busy earning a place in the Empire, not making the call to take yours. I think most Ni-Kunni prefer a more gentle approach to Reclaiming that mirrors our experience with the whole ordeal.
Whatever the case, all this fighting is silly now so let’s get on with life. Pride is just pride, insults are just insults. Tragedies happen and while anger has its place, it should never be allowed to make more tragedies.
Still trying that narrative, huh? The simple fact is, peace is what would be perpetuating tragedies. Every single day, your lot is perpetuating it. The generational slavery and torment of trillions. There’s just no way to say “forget the past” when it’s the present that’s the primary concern, and the greatest hurdle to clear.
You can pretend otherwise all you want, but if you want peace, it’s on you to unfuck that system. Until then, every bullet in your direction is not just justified, but the moral and ethical duty of anyone with even the slightest capacity for empathy and reason.
If this was directed at the Federation and it was Adams saying it, would you still be laughing? Even a year ago, under as many boosters and drugs i could handle I wouldnt even muster a chuckle.
Because subjective feelings, and emotive decision making is only relevant to those nations who are governed by an unruly mob such as in the Republic, and which leads to disasters such as Colelie, where by attempting to coerce a political outcome through the use of violence the Republic committed an act of terrorism.
The Federation however, is a society ruled and governed by its laws, and in so doing its decisions are sought to be as dispassionate as possible – such as refusing to negotiate with terrorists.
Well … apparently Ms. Rhiannon feels you have her right, Arrendis, but there’s a subtle distinction here.
Okay. Let’s look at what Ms. Rhiannon said.
Again, bad strategic decision. It was justified.
Not justifiable; justified. The reasons for doing it, she cites as matters of honor and principle. The reasons not to do it, strategic.
What those of us being patronizing are saying, Arrendis, is that it wasn’t just a strategic blunder. It was a failure of honor in honor’s name; a failure to respect a friend and patron’s laws within its own domain; a failure to heed international norms and boundaries. That, to the rest of us, is maybe a little more than a set of strategic considerations.
Is it human and understandable? Yep. So’s pretty much everything humans get up to.
What laws and rules are for, in the Empire, in the State, in the Federation, and, I hope, in the Republic, is to keep piles and piles of human, understandable stuff contained. Because it makes destabilizing, deadly trouble.
The core critique of democracy by those of us loyal to more authoritarian powers has long been that it’s in thrall to an unruly mob-- that when tested, a democracy will do what is popular in the moment instead of acting with care.
If you say that you don’t want a democracy, but do want to be in thrall to your people’s passions of the moment, it seems like you’re giving up the benefits of the democracy (and I have to admit life in the Federation seemed kind of nice) without receiving a very steady guiding hand in exchange.
Which brings us to this:
You may need to be willing to see those things at least pretty sharply discounted-- because you can’t expect the rest of us to take them as seriously as you do, even if we try to show respect (I note that the malefactor in the assassination was in fact ultimately turned over to the Republic by the Federation, at which point, if I remember, the inevitable happened and he was promptly killed).
If not-- well, Arrendis, you’ve argued before that the Empire should be treated as an outlaw power, that the other CONCORD signatories should hunt us like pirates. If you insist that you can violate treaties, sovereign borders, and so on, whenever tribal and blood concerns are in play and the strategic situation permits, why should we not say the same of you?
It’s not like you haven’t negotiated in bad faith at other times: the Elder Fleet, the destruction of CONCORD HQ (whose broken wreckage is still in orbit).
You can justify these acts on the basis of your kin still held by the Empire, and I’m a little sympathetic to that. But it seems like you can justify basically anything that way, and frankly every other power has largely subordinated such concerns to the good of the society.
If you can’t … if you’ll prioritize blood and tribe and other understandable, human things to the point where you’ll regard treaties and so on as things to be looked at as only strategic obstacles … maybe Ms. Rhiannon is in fact right. Maybe there can’t be a lasting peace, between you and anyone.
Yes. It was justified. Justification was found. Was the justification right? No. But it was justification in the eyes of those who made the decision.
I toss a bird into an oven and cook it. The bird comes out tasting horrible. Why? Because I didn’t pluck the feathers or put it in a pan, I just tossed it in the damn oven and ran the fire until the bird died and the flesh was mildly charred through to the bone.
Is the bird cooked? YES. It’s not cooked WELL, but it’s still bloody well cooked.
WHICH LITERALLY NOBODY IS SAYING SO THANK YOU FOR LECTURING ME ON THAT YET AGAIN GODDAMMIT
Where ‘this’ is a statement that passions and irrational reactions must be taken into account, and human beings treated like human beings and expected to act like human beings, and not bloodless furking drones. But that’s not what you see, despite people repeatedly saying that that’s what it is. So rather than ask for clarification, you’re just gonna KEEP ON FURKING LECTURING.
Edit: Let me be clear here. When I say ‘justification was found’, I am saying that the past tense of the active verb ‘to justify’ is a correct usage, even if the common assumption of the meaning of that particular spelling is ‘this action was just’. It’s a point of unclear linguistic construction, and assumptions being made on how to interpret that lack of clarity, when ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS ASK WHAT THE HELL WAS MEANT BY THAT WORD.