[begin transmission]

It's been brought to my attention that in one of my recent emails I may have crossed a line.
A line which, most people would maintain, and with very good reason, should never be crossed.
The email in question is contained in post ID #20180518.
There, I reference Purim's, a friend of Alice2's, suicide.

The relevant portion of the email, with the contentious statement in bold:

And, honestly, you talk a lot about responsibility, but, you don’t exhibit a single fuckin’ shred of it.
You see, if you’re a leader, if you’re a community leader, if you’re in charge of your merry band of faggots that means you’re responsible for their actions.
This whole jurisdiction thing it’s a fuckin’ stupid smokescreen…..
As well in Discord,….. all of them have rules against doxing. And, you have a Discord server, and you’re not enforcing those rules. That’s your responsibility.

NO. Wrong. First, that is a horrendous conceptualization of leadership, as it invites nothing short of tyranny. Each individual is a sovereign body in his or her own right.
Part of my role as leader is to protect that sovereignty. Not reduce it by taking it on as my own. That is a tremendous disservice to that person and risks infantilizing them.
Following your logic, it’d suggest Alice2 is responsible for things such as Purim’s suicide; something I wouldn’t necessarily hold her accountable for. I suggest you dispense of that dangerous notion immediately.

I've been told that this is a slight against Purim, or a dishonor to her memory.
To that, I disagree. I hope it's sufficiently clear that I wasn't mentioning the incident trivially.
It's obvious that I was citing the incident as an example to make a point. It wasn't a mere, crude dig.
I mentioned in the email that I took a risk. People are going to want to paint me as vile because of it.

And that's okay.

You see, no one gets to maneuver through this life with their soul completely unscathed.
Invariably, you'll come to know sin time after time again, despite your best attempts at righteousness.
That isn't to say that the pursuit is meaningless; striving for a life of virtue confers it's own benefits.
Reducing your own suffering and that of others is the noblest pursuit one could hope to strive for.

But the fact of the matter is that you will cause suffering. You will hurt someone, eventually.
That's a fact intrinsic to existence as suffering itself.

Sometimes it will be accidental. If you're aware of it, recognize the transgression and apologize.
Generally, decent people will accept your apology if the transgression is relatively minor.
If the transgression is major, then sometimes forgiveness is not an option available to you.
In which case you're going to carry that weight. Remember, no soul goes completely unscathed.

But there are instances in which you may do harm in full, conscious awareness.
Often times it will be out of rage, avarice, jealousy...take your pick of any negative affect.
These are more regrettable actions that tarnish our soul even further, since they're done purposefully.
Sometimes we're forgiven for them, sometimes we're not, much like in the accidental case.

I'm not interested in these emotionally-driven sins. Most of us are already familiar with the concept.

But there are sins that are done intentionally, to serve a greater purpose; a greater good.
The types of transgressions are not born of unruly emotion, but they're (hopefully) calculated.
Because instances that usually warrant such an action are instances that are typically non-trivial.
Thus, there is likely something of value on the line. And that something is valuable enough to sin for.

That is exactly what my statement in response to Reaver's faulty conception of leadership is.
A sin. Meant to do harm, but not out of sheer malevolence. For righting of a wrong.

I'm of the mind that every individual is responsible for themselves and their own actions.
As I stated before, every individual is a sovereign entity in their own right. They act to their will.
Being able to act in accordance with that will is known as "rights".
Rights preclude any law dictated by a higher authority. Law should strive to protect those rights.

That higher authority might include a king, queen, judicial court, or even a community leader.
These ideas aren't of my own, but credited to Thomas Hobbes; specifically, it's outlined in Leviathan.

So, when Reaver made the suggestion that a leader is responsible for the actions of his/her citizens...
I had to make a hard correction. That foolish suggestion had some fairly nefarious implications.
Namely, that citizens do not have the freedom to act in accordance of their own will. No rights.
Historically, we've come to know this as characteristic of tyrannical systems.

That's not exactly how I'd like to run my server. I hope anekichat isn't ran in a similar fashion either.

Further contemplation of Reaver's assertion also raises another issue.
Okay, if the leader is responsible for citizens, then what of the citizens' individual responsibility?
That is precisely why I asserted that such a notion only serves to infantilize individuals.
It sets the precedence that they are alleviated of all consequences to their actions. I can't accept that.

To this, a fair objection could be raised and you could say "Not ALL actions, 2B. But some."
I'd agree with you. Not all actions. But which ones, exactly? And who gets to decide the boundary?
Solely the leader? The logical conclusion of that is tyranny. The citizenship? Anarchy.
That is why there has to be some autonomy afforded to the citizenship, some personal responsibility.

That is exactly my thesis. My responsibility as a leader is limited by my sphere of influence.
I cannot, and should not, try to dictate, try to assume responsibility for, all the actions of free people.
It's a very complex matter, these notions of leadership, government, rights, and responsibility.
It is not something so easily figured out, to be resolved with useless notions such as Reaver's.

So, to bring it all back, that was motivation behind my statement. To correct a corrupt idea.
Did I have to use the death of a person as an example? Of course not.
But I think it's quite obvious by now that I feel strongly about the matter. I feel it's justified.
I used an example that would, or should, absolutely convince Reaver and Alice2 of their fallacious thinking.

I was being "cruel to be kind". That's from Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Also a favorite adage of Alice2's to toss about.

I was told that this was not how you honor the dead. Using someone's death to hurt another 'friend'.
If someone is convinced from their poisonous notions of leadership, responsibility, and rights,
If someone is convinced that they're not to suffer the torment that comes from misplaced guilt,
Then the hurt sustained pales in comparison to the benefits reaped. That's my stance.

And what greater honor could you bestow upon the dead than to learn from them, postmortem?
Moreover, possibly assuage the guilt a friend of theirs might have felt over the entire occurrence.
I did not know Purim on an intimate level. We shared but a few casual, topical exchanges.
However, I don't think that she would've wanted anyone to blame themselves for what she did.

Despite all of this, some might still hold me in contempt for making the remarks that I made.
As I said before, that's fine. You could refuse everything I said for favor of thinking me wicked.
It's a little dishonest, but I cannot demand you reject your worldview for favor of mine.
Maybe that is a line you never, ever cross, under any circumstances whatsoever.

But I will tell you this much: you will have an incredibly hard time in the world, clinging to that idea.
That you can get by without ever inflicting harm, intentionally. Sometimes lines are to be crossed.
There will come some time in your life where you have to hurt in order to progress.
Why, the very concept is common in negotiation: business, diplomatic, interpersonal or otherwise.

Leverage is afforded only to those with something to offer. If you have nothing, then no leverage.
You're essentially left at the mercy of the other, with no clout in the transaction.
However, having something to offer is not necessarily limited to things in a positive sense.
The threat of punishment is also a valid bargaining chip, in order to achieve your aims.

But to someone that is naive enough to believe they can skate through life without inflicting harm...
That isn't a valid option. They're handicapped, rendering themselves a hapless victim.
Now, that very person committed to "harmlessness" might object and say:
"That's okay. I can just ensure I have something valuable to offer, I don't need to resort to harm."

But what makes you so sure that your opponent values the same things you do?
Suffering, for how terrible it is, is universal.
Your opponent cannot be indifferent to their own suffering, try as hard as they might.
Therefore it's advantageous to be capable and willing to harm, if need be.

That isn't to say that one should go harming with impunity.
As I mentioned before; if you're going to sin, do it calculatingly. Do it so that good is the end result.
Additionally, do it only when it is absolutely necessary and the situation warrants it.
This sentiment is reflected in several martial arts doctrines, of being controlled, but dangerous.

It's the very same sentiment contained in one of my favorite Nietzschean ideas:
Harmlessness is not virtue. Victimhood is not a virtue.
This was originally a criticism to Christianity's slave morality. It applies here nicely, I think.
A virtuous person is someone that is capable of harming, but exercises discipline.

Besides that, I understand the objections behind such ideas.

It's my understanding that people are afraid of becoming monsters. I can see why.
I'm not sure which one is more frightening: the act of becoming one, or the fact that they're capable.
But in either regard, it's something intrinsic to the human condition, to commit evil.
Warranted, in some cases, specifically when confronting monsters themselves, lest you be a victim.

And I don't ever intend to become a victim.

[end transmission]

When one tries desperately to be good and wonderful and perfect, then all the more the shadow develops a definite will to be black and evil and destructive. People cannot see that; they are always striving to be marvellous, and then they discover that terrible destructive things happen which they cannot understand, and they either deny that such facts have anything to do with them, or if they admit them, they take them for natural afflictions, or they try to minimize them and to shift the responsibility elsewhere. The fact is that if one tries beyond one's capacity to be perfect, the shadow descends into hell and becomes the devil.

Carl Jung. Visions. 1976.

[begin transmission]

I don't know where you are.

I don't know if you are there. 

I don't know if you're listening, if these words would ever reach you.

I do know, that in some abstract form, you are still here with me. I am keeping you alive.

Maybe I'm engaging in some wishful thinking. That somehow, I am speaking with you directly.

That's the objective truth, isn't it? You're gone. You're never coming back. A fact of ten years now.

There is absolutely no one there. I'm throwing these thoughts of mine into a void, aimlessly

But the memory of you is still there, and that much is very real. That part of you still affects me.

It would be a lie if I said that I think of you everyday. You remember well, I hope.

How caught-up in the moment I was. I'd get tunnel vision you'd chronically have to shake me from.

Though, it isn't a lie to say that I do think of you very frequently. It's impossible not to.

Someone that proved to be so pivotal in my development, someone who taught me what a soul was.

I couldn't ever forget you. I likely never would. That is why I am here.

There will always be that part of me that doesn't quite understand those romantic notions of yours.

Kindness, courage, honor, nobility, love, selflessness. None of it really adds up in my analysis.

Given everything I know, all of my experience, these concepts never fully parse. And yet...

Given everything I know, all of my experience, these concepts I could never really do without.

Life without art, without beauty, without the sublime is too bleak and too sad. You taught me that.

There are some things that do not necessarily have to make sense rationally, to be profound.

I've thought about it over the years; my hypothesis is that it is because we're limited, linguistically.

It isn't some thing intrinsic to the piece of art that makes it unspeakable; it's our own inexpression.

What do you think about that hypothesis?

How many spoonfuls of sugar and cups of coffee would it take for us to reach armistice? 

Although I rarely showed any mercy, you were always a gentleman. A perfect gentleman.

After every spirited disagreement, you would ruffle my hair and reassure me the answer would come.

Secretly, I hated such compassionate gestures. I always thought them patronizing. 

But now I miss it more than anything.

I'm quickly finding that there are no answers. Nearly everything that I had taken for bedrock is sand.

Even the very axioms that I've borrowed from the minds of great thinkers are tenuous at best.

The only sure-fire thing I can rely on is myself, and my ability to hold on, steadfastly.

I feel as if you knew that. Was this the lesson to be learned? Was I too naive to notice it before?

I'll be taking the lesson to heart, then.

I'm happy to report that I've been taking very good care of myself. Your impeccable little soldier.

There are the occasional slip-ups, here and there. Most of it caused by work and personal projects.

But you know me very well, and you know that I've never been one to struggle with the basics.

However, on the non-basics, sometimes  I really do wonder if you'd be sufficiently proud of me.

Since you've been gone, I'd made several good friends; friends that I feel I can keep for life.

Hard to believe, isn't it? I've really tried...to not be so hostile. To not be so standoffish.

It's served me well, being able to get it under control. I've learned to pick my battles, finally.

You'd also be thrilled to hear that I've even managed to cooperate in a few romances...

Though...it brings me hesitation to say that with ultimate certainty. I'm not sure if you'd approve.

With each and every year that passes by, the bounds of your generosity become more unclear.

I took that generosity for granted once before, the consequences of which still bring me pause.

In that regard, I'm almost certain I've been a let down.

I've always wondered what you would think of me, as I am now. This...person I've become.

Would you be disappointed? Would you blame yourself? Mother? I wonder if she blames you too.

People think one way but behave differently. You're no exception to this and neither am I.

And now, that void I mentioned before suddenly becomes a comfort. I don't know why I do this.

I still cling to the hope that you'd take pride in how much I've accomplished, regardless.

That you'd be able to fully understand and embrace me. Accept me. But there is so much doubt.

It doesn't really matter, I suppose. There's no utility to be had in entertaining such thoughts.

It'll likely be one of those things left forever unresolved. An answer will never come.

Even so, I will take what you've carefully laid out for me, and try to meet your expectations.

Because at the very least partial fulfillment of this opportunity is better than zero fulfillment.

Seldom am I left without a sense of gratitude towards you, even after all that had transpired.

Without you, I wouldn't be here, period. That much is an immutable truth.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Another dear colleague of mine, growing up, now creating large strides in the romantic domain.

It makes me think about how far we've all come, since those carefree days in which we first met.

How much responsibility we've taken on since then. How much things have changed.

How much we ourselves, have changed. We're far cries from the people we used to be.

With every passing day, new opportunities present themselves, while others vanish.

Although we cannot entirely recapture those times of innocence, we can trade for something better.

That's what is surprising about all of this. There might be a Bright Future (TM) to be had afterall.

Even I cannot be entirely cynical about this marriage. My heart swells with pride, and a slight envy.

Dear you, the woman who I've admired for years now, and had the honor of coming to know.

Ordering my steps with your inspiration, you helped me become the person I am today.

Boisterous, audacious, steadfast woman. You rarely backed down from a challenge.

Have you finally met your match, I wonder? Would it take someone equally as terrible to tame you?

Somehow, no matter how domesticated you might become, I don't think you'll ever lose your ferocity.

A contestable life is all we've ever known; it's what we thrive off of, despite complaints otherwise.

We're not equipped for the stagnation that comes with peace. We're too restless in temperament for it.

It takes a special sort of person to understand that, to accompany us into the later stages of life.

In this regard I am ecstatic that you found a rarity sufficiently compatible to walk side-by-side with.

I wish you both a marriage that is just as colorful, vibrant, and whimsical as the two of you.

Please, uphold your contractual duties and take excellent care of yourselves and each other.

Sincerest congratulations, my noble and intrepid bride.

[end transmission]