There are presumably three crucial things I have learned so far.
Noam Chomsky once said that if we don’t believe in freedom for the people we despise, then we don’t believe in anything at all. And it’s true somehow; we can’t inherently fight for everyone’s rights, we can’t grasp every single groups and views and converge them altogether, we can’t side with everyone, which means in the end we could never be impartial and there must be certain views we stand up for and certain views we try to fight against, no matter what. And then our attempts to fight for certain things wouldn’t result in anything. Because for every certain things or people we stand up for, certain other things or people have to be sacrificed or to be fought against. Our so-called aspirations to create a better world mean nothing for in the end we can’t embrace everyone. Under a myriad of circumstances we ought to fight. To pick sides. To be inherently subjective and then decide to set limitations of freedom towards certain groups we’re against. No one has to be blamed, though, it’s just the way it is. We call a certain group bigoted when they can’t compromise with other views and they throw tantrums toward those who are different— but have we contemplated that there are times we subconsciously find ourselves doing the same thing?
That one moment when we call reactionaries close minded— without realizing that the act of calling someone close-minded is also ironically an act of close-mindedness itself. In the end almost everyone’s a total elitist about their own views anyway, war starts when everyone starts preaching about their versions of the wrong and right dichotomy that might not be applicable for everyone but they expect each other to suit into their versions anyway. It’s frankly true that in the end Chomsky was right; we all don’t actually believe and stand up for anything at all because in order to fight for certain views that we claim to believe in, there’s no choice that we ought to marginalize other parties and limit their freedom. There’s this one ugly truth; in unexpected circumstances, disputes and wars make people understand the meaning of peace.
Regarding all the existing (or at least, believed to be existent) omnipotent beings in the universe, we create ideas in our head that the best ways to serve them is to kneel over them; to worship them through superstitious rituals and make a cult out of them. But the question is, is it really what your omnipotent being wants? Do they really want to be worshipped and made a cult of? The real question is how the fuck do you all even try to dig in what your so-called god really wants, though. Some interpretations depict omnipotent beings as a ruthless, condemning one. They are depicted to be interfering with people’s beliefs, orientations and choices; to patronize everyone who violates their rules and condemn them in a so-called hell; and a lot more interpretations to go. But is it really the depiction of the god that you all have been seeking for? We tend to create ideas regarding someone or something only based on our limited knowledge and perception about it, and at times we have never really questioned nor proof-checked whether our interpretations are valid. In the worst case, we shove down our interpretations to everyone and expect them to believe in it. Cut to the chase, what if apparently you have been perceiving your god the wrong way and your efforts to worship them are worth nothing in the end?
Are we sure we are no longer being put in a pan-optical surveillance— are we sure we are not living the life of Orwell’s 1984 or Zamyatin’s We? Are we that sure that there’s really no « big brother » figure watching over all of us in this civilization? Here’s the thing, our freedom of expression is strictly limited, there would always be a possibility we could get condemned and arrested for everything we do, say, or believe in. Our own civilization is our own « big brother » figure. In the end we’re nothing but pawns of a surveillance-ravaged society. You might say it’s pitiful to live under surveillance when you read fictions about it, but that’s just plain daft and ironic to say such thing when you’re also the one being put under surveillance yourself.