beccaelizabeth (beccaelizabeth) wrote,

I keep reading argues about who the real bad guys are
and some of them - some - are actually lawful good and chaotic good having an argument about the nature of evil whilst not noticing there's another sort of alignment.

So there's protests and riots and there's police and laws
and the more lawful good inclined will be like, look at those law breaking people, we are good citizens, they are bad guys, go sit down, violence is wrong.
but the chaotic good people are being like, look at those laws breaking people, we are good citizens, those are bad guys, come stand up, systemic violence is wrong.

it's hard for different alignments to have a nice conversation.

it's also hard sometimes because systemic stuff, unjust laws, law enforcement with no training or checks or balances, it's slow grinding stuff. Like, I read yet another article about how the rules are set up so people have to starve and get homeless in order to prove they have a need, and I see a system killing people. But well meaning people who think the government know their arse from their elbow see that there exists a safety net and the mesh size is hard to figure from further away. I read articles about hospital admissions for malnutrition being up and I wonder why it doesn't just say more people are starving. Is it because the system says there's always help? And the NHS is the last net and is delivering help, but 'unexpected deaths' are going up and up. And whatever is happening, however it's occurring, it's doing it slowly and in the statistics. and so are the rules killing people? by the time the bosses have argued it around and said they'd be dying anyway and the longer term numbers are better, there's a new set of numbers out, and the argument can start again. (it bothers me that the longer term numbers are better. because either the thing is doing its job and lifting people up to stable again, which would be yaay, or the ones closest to the cliff edge can't last that long, which would... not. rent arrears in particular - is it that they get paid back, or they get chucked out? do they even have the right numbers to know?)

sometimes systemic violence is a lot more abrupt. shootings, killings. lies on camera.

the lawful good people see a law enforcement officer breaking the law, they see one bad guy. because the law protects.

lawful good is not well equipped to perceive lawful evil.
chaotic good is inclined to see it.

So the flashy violence, the once and done, the news reports with crowds and destruction, one team sees it as an unprovoked attack, because it's unlawful, and the other set reckons it a last line of defense, because there's already evil.

lawful evil that just sets up the rules to look after their own and screw the other guy? slow and difficult to prove. people do the work, but it's a lot of work.

chaotic outbursts are easier to notice, while law is the default background.

... tipping the balance so far to chaos that a kept rule is the stand out, that's a whole different problem.

thing is, none of the other alignments are really well equipped to grok chaotic evil. they don't care about the rules, or civilized behaviour, or what is best. I mean, the true chaotic evil isn't even out for their own long term interest, they're just in it for the lulz. they'll watch the world burn because blowing things up real good seems like it'll get the most reaction.

but there's a lot fewer actually chaotic evil assholes than there are people who wear it a while and are shocked - shocked and appalled - that the lawful structures do not soak the consequences sufficiently to keep them safe.

like setting the school on fire only believing the firemen will put it out.

some people can't see how chopping out the supports will knock the structure down, but more just kind of assume there'll always be enough support there, somehow, so they'll just chop this bit on account of it being in their own personal way.

maybe most people are neutral not by conviction but by not really thinking it through, acting chaotic while leaning on law.


it's also a problem that many people don't know eve dnd alignments. they haven't read a multi clan players guide and had it explain how every faction is best and worst. they don't turn things around in their heads to see different axes, let alone translate between them.

and then a lot of gear grinding happens and discussion gets unproductive.

though with your true chaotic evil discussion is pretty unproductive anyway, since they're not using words to express beliefs and reach an agreement, they're just stirring shit and breaking shit and getting their way with the tools to hand.

If you believe in enlightenment as a universal possibility, you have to figure out how to reach all the corners of the alignment map.


especially the chaotic neutrals, who might not be boss of their own brains.

alignment isn't simple to figure out from the outside neither. as well as being biased by one's own alignment, there's no work around for the thing where people can do the same thing for vastly different reasons.

I think mostly elected politicians think they are Lawful Good, and slip into narrower definitions of Good, until they end up selfish Evil instead. But still, lawful, or they wouldn't play at parliaments and rulebooks.

I think then sometimes someone will turn up who is somewhere else on the alignment chart, and everyone scrambles to figure them out and respond appropriately.

also I think a lot of people's desire to elect chaotic good - to change the rules and make everything more good for everyone again - can get exploited by people who indeed want to change the rules but are not so much going to make for greater freedoms, or the greater good of the greater diversity.

sometimes different sorts of chaotic good think each other is evil, like that thing where superheroes always end up fighting each other. it's from not having anhierarchy to tell them which side they're on.

it's also all a silly filter to look at things through, trying to simplify to four directions like that. Free will requires both chaos and order, both freedom to make the widest possible range of choices, and structure to make it vaguely predictable how that will turn out. more laws can make more free while reducing chaos. language clunky like that. ... and my alignment clearly showing...

but sometimes people are having an argument on more than one axis at once, and can't agree on much if they don't notice that. so. vague thoughts.

what I don't get is how people can watch like Star Wars and still, whatever their politics, think they are the plucky outnumbered rebels doing the right yet nasty thing. I mean, I do kind of, because every human is one seven billionth and shrinking of the human race, so we're each the outnumbered and feeling it. but I don't, because how does the biggest organisation with the biggest sticks still feel that way?


which is also why I have as always great concerns about checking targets carefully before taking action. If it becomes socially acceptable to do a particular bad thing to a particular group of people, seems like the bad thing will go up aimed at all people, and the people doing it will say it's because they thought their target was the acceptable target. Better to keep some behaviour unacceptable, protects everyone.

... hate speech is among the unacceptable, but plastic noise maker thingies seem a best practice for getting it to go away.

mostly though i stay home and hide under a blanket, so what do i know?

xposted from Dreamwidth here. comment count unavailable comments. Reply there
Comments for this post were disabled by the author