The Bottom Line - Addendum

For context I think it matters, that the 'being unreasonable' bit only works - or really carries its weight - when there's something to be unreasonable about. The pivotal statement for my part would be one of not being convinced of or about something they'd put forward. And sure enough, it only really really works if it's ... reasonable ... to not be convinced by the thing in question. And it wouldn't come to that if there's nothing they'd put forward - while I were put on the hot seat of defending myself for instance.

And with that, we're somehow back in the Wrestling Ring, as it were, because in an actual debate there's still the whole back and forth part. That however doesn't matter anymore when we're concerned of the substance of what is being put onto the table.
And as for this - well - we might call it a thought experiment - I mean, I could make it my whole point that they're not going to be convinced by what I have to say, thus challenging them to put some things that I - according to them, ought to be convinced by - to make the case of what if I now refused to be convinced by it?

And sure - as a wholesale generalization to be applied onto any point presented in whatever way - it might be kind of dumb. I'm sure ... quite a few silly things could be generated that way. So yea, that's the Wrestling aspect to it. TO so work out the high ground per chance - so whatever they might try to say sounds unbearably silly. Which sure would be the point of it all - as per the Wrestling analogy. And how that would play out ... isn't really the point. The point - for now - was the bottom line.


And yes, while it's all just a hypothetical ... so on and so forth ... bla bla ... round and round ... . And OBVIOUSLY - once the thing were done, say - best case outcome, people would still be talking and smartassing around about it.

Obviously ... just being unreasonable rather than giving a reasonable answer isn't really ... THE point. THE point is that I have a lot of points I am quite confident about - to the point where I am of the strong understanding that I couldn't be swayed from them. So, THE point - the bottom line - being that it isn't just an act ... just ... a thing. A thing I suppose ... people should feel invited to challenge me on.

In fact - I am ... curious. I mean ... if we can glance past the adversarial aspects of this, there may be need for a space of friendly competition. I mean, the matter with good faith arguments is, that they come from a position of true curiosity - where even if we understand something we might per chance feel the need to clarify or get clarification. With bad faith arguments it's a little bit more wonky, random and ... I'd say: idiotic.


And yea, we might wonder: Should I use the word 'idiot'ic? How do I square that with my belief? And I have answers - and I might be wrong. I mean, this isn't really one of those issues I'm boastingly confident on. When it comes to violence though, I have a bit more meat on my ribs - mostly due to not having a lot of 'actual' meat on my ribs - so the rough of it were that I think there's value in trying to get along. To not default to a place of adversarial co-existence; Which is - to my understanding - more difficult to stick to, the more abstract the violence is we speak of.
So, Jesus drawing lines in the sand is one example of where this abstract violence would take us - and that there are limits to turning the other cheek. Now, the Bible still encourages us to try and not be the arbiters thereof; To so leave the judgment to God - but still: Outside of working towards the goal of a co-operative common ground, it's like ... communication still matters. I mean, "We're here, we're Queer, Get used to it" is, similar to "Black Lives Matter" a chant of sorts - that is a stand in for the amount of words that have been uttered from that position. Words, or expressions, breaths - that would at occasion attract violence. Implying as much as that merely existing can be violence in the abstract ... like not being perfect, immaculate, can be. "Not an Angel". And yes, so - from some perspective - waving the rainbow flag is as much political violence as is waving a nazi flag - but the one side strives for acceptance while the other tries to get rid of it. Which is how this weird situation comes about in the first place. A conflict that is at an impass as one has to go.

And there is simply put no way, to circumnavigate this perfectly, in the realm of words. Loving thy neighbour as thou lovest thine self - is a way to encourage ourselves to speak up against injustices. As that is one of the few - if not the only real - way to bring about the momentum of change. And so we get to turning the other cheek as an encouragement of becoming part of that momentum. To do the talk - even in face of violence.

It sure sucks to be a minority if no one else would speak out for you because ... the thing about being a minority is being in a minority. But getting stuck in the grimdark of it ... that is one way to get fired up into actual violence. Whether it be justified or not.

And, to be fair, my wisdom stops where the prospect of becoming martyrs would be on the table. I mean, for me - I'd say it isn't in the writing for me to suffer that fate. And that has its own tail. As I wrote in my second book ... I do enjoy a certain privilege. Like, let's call it a direct line to the Judge. Not sure how close I am to being Karma where Karma is said to be a bitch ... but, I do live in a kind of bubble in which my vindictive nature is nourished somewhat. As opposed to all the poor sods, I suppose, that don't get to have that luxury. But that also puts me even more so into a position where I have to uphold the corresponding values.

And yea, the internal conflict is a bitch. Because, on the one side justice is supposed to be served, on the other ... I can't like, fully embrace it. So I'm stuck with "whatever" - while pressure is mounted from two opposing sides.
The piece of quiet however comes from the fact that there is this other side - opposed to me taking out the red candles and smearing pentagrams on my walls.

But yea, there was a point. To strive for the common goal. The bigger it gets, the more easy it will be to sidestep conflicts. It's like how bullies feel strong while they deem themselves in the superior position - mostly, I'd argue, counted in terms of numbers and plausible deniability. Maybe it's a stretch - but ... yea ...

The other bottomline: Overwhelming Optimism

Maybe it's the same bottom line with a different coating - but, to be fair, eventually it isn't fun to imagine how this whole process might be a struggle. We might just get to the end of it - as there isn't really an alternative to it anyway (see what I did there?).
So, yea. In the idea - to avoid all the violence, even the most abstract forms of it, we need 'the thing' to focus on - and put our minds to. And that thing is only going to help relative to its reach. And establishing that reach might be a form of political violence - though being overwhelmingly optimistic, that's actually just the temporary stress consequential to the social shift. Which is to argue that to really do away with all the violence - we need to ... uhm ... yea, fight for it. Not by violence - but by what is to "be the thing". That way, we won't have to figure when or where to stop. We just have to do it.

And that's that!