Now let me make it very clear in the beginning: I don't think it's right to judge people. I am judging the Americans for being very sensitive, but I have to acknowledge that there are merits to being sensitive. It is good that diversity is celebrated. It is excellent that gender equality is celebrated. It is fantastic that gays and lesbians are welcomed with open arms here.
In short, it's perfectly alright to change these unjust status quo for the better. What I'm against is the method, how the change is being carried out. How the words "fight" and "war" characterize the efforts of effecting the desired change.
Fighting against something and waging war against something is wrong on multiple levels: They are ineffective at best and cause massive casualties at worse. Doesn't the very word "fight" itself embody violence? We claim to be a "civilized person" but we still resort to violence, albeit at a metaphysical level, to enact change. What does it say about us? Are we truly different from barbarians?
No, and this not only about self-image. It is the mere fact that fire cannot be extinguished with fire. Hatred can never be dissolved with hatred. The universal law of attraction dictates that you attract what you emit - giving out fights will merely invite more fighting into your life. Instead, focus on advocating the change you want to bring, the end result that you desire. Transcend your adversary. Have faith that you can make that changes happen, do something productive to bring the desired change. Exploding against a racist/sexist/homophobe might feel good, but is it really productive? Will it really bring about the desired change? Will he or she stop being a racist/sexist/homophobe after seeing your anger?
People are definitely entitled to their own views. You can definitely argue that revolutions which brought about many changes for the better involve violence, that they are quick and effective. But are the changes brought about really comprehensive? Is it ever worth spilling blood to prevent blood to be spilled? Does a just war exist? Well, you can say that the use of force is necessary sometimes, from the Jewish people's liberation from Nazi to the Kuwaitian's liberation from the hands of Saddam. I can't, and won't argue against that. But does it mean we necessarily characterize our efforts to bring about change using the same vocabularies, and carry them out based on similar principles? I beg to differ.
Truly Indonesia's Finest,
In short, it's perfectly alright to change these unjust status quo for the better. What I'm against is the method, how the change is being carried out. How the words "fight" and "war" characterize the efforts of effecting the desired change.
Fighting against something and waging war against something is wrong on multiple levels: They are ineffective at best and cause massive casualties at worse. Doesn't the very word "fight" itself embody violence? We claim to be a "civilized person" but we still resort to violence, albeit at a metaphysical level, to enact change. What does it say about us? Are we truly different from barbarians?
No, and this not only about self-image. It is the mere fact that fire cannot be extinguished with fire. Hatred can never be dissolved with hatred. The universal law of attraction dictates that you attract what you emit - giving out fights will merely invite more fighting into your life. Instead, focus on advocating the change you want to bring, the end result that you desire. Transcend your adversary. Have faith that you can make that changes happen, do something productive to bring the desired change. Exploding against a racist/sexist/homophobe might feel good, but is it really productive? Will it really bring about the desired change? Will he or she stop being a racist/sexist/homophobe after seeing your anger?
People are definitely entitled to their own views. You can definitely argue that revolutions which brought about many changes for the better involve violence, that they are quick and effective. But are the changes brought about really comprehensive? Is it ever worth spilling blood to prevent blood to be spilled? Does a just war exist? Well, you can say that the use of force is necessary sometimes, from the Jewish people's liberation from Nazi to the Kuwaitian's liberation from the hands of Saddam. I can't, and won't argue against that. But does it mean we necessarily characterize our efforts to bring about change using the same vocabularies, and carry them out based on similar principles? I beg to differ.
Truly Indonesia's Finest,
Love this blog right here. Very deep & structured arguments!:)
ReplyDeletehaha thank you priss :))
Delete