![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
un: jaycetalis | video
[In a rare moment of using video on purpose, there's Jayce. To those who know him, he looks the same as he always does. To those who don't- he's an early 30's man with seemingly a permanent five-o-clock shadow, bright golden eyes, and perfectly coiffed hair. The background is out of focus, but to those who know it, it's clearly a part of S.T.A.R. labs. Normally a little more jovial or at least less serious sounding, Jayce looks into the camera like he's giving a press release.]
Weāve got about forty-eight hours or less until Aurora allows that toxin into Etraya. Which means if you havenāt started taking precautions already; start now. Get easily carried food, medical supplies, whatever you think you'd need. Better to be over-prepared than under.
Considering what Aurora's told us about the "mission"... If youāre someone prone to having weapons, do us all a favor and throw them into one of our many, lovely lakes, before you wind up using it on someone else. Or, if youāre going to be touchy about it, let me know, Iāll talk with Harold about how we can get them locked up somewhere for the missionās duration.
As a reminder to those who donāt want to think about it, and maybe new information to those who are new: if you die here, for whatever reason, you lose something. I donāt know what, you wonāt know what, and you might not even know what it is youāve lost even after youāve lost it. Maybe itās an eye, maybe itās the memory of your best friend. Either way, whatever you're afraid of by not having your weapons on you isnāt worth what youāll be making someone else lose because of your bad decisions.
If you have any special concerns, worries about any specific denizens in this upcoming mission, now's also the time to voice it.
Weāve got about forty-eight hours or less until Aurora allows that toxin into Etraya. Which means if you havenāt started taking precautions already; start now. Get easily carried food, medical supplies, whatever you think you'd need. Better to be over-prepared than under.
Considering what Aurora's told us about the "mission"... If youāre someone prone to having weapons, do us all a favor and throw them into one of our many, lovely lakes, before you wind up using it on someone else. Or, if youāre going to be touchy about it, let me know, Iāll talk with Harold about how we can get them locked up somewhere for the missionās duration.
As a reminder to those who donāt want to think about it, and maybe new information to those who are new: if you die here, for whatever reason, you lose something. I donāt know what, you wonāt know what, and you might not even know what it is youāve lost even after youāve lost it. Maybe itās an eye, maybe itās the memory of your best friend. Either way, whatever you're afraid of by not having your weapons on you isnāt worth what youāll be making someone else lose because of your bad decisions.
If you have any special concerns, worries about any specific denizens in this upcoming mission, now's also the time to voice it.
no subject
Speed, endurance, and dexterity all require a baseline of strength and physical ability. To use an absurd example, a five year old is not going to outrun a 28 year old. Physical inequality still matters in defense, and weaponry can bridge that gap.
This is the most male approach to a matter I have seen in some time.
[ "Don't worry about the mentally unstable people with several inches and several kilograms of muscle on you! You might make them sad." For God's sake. ]
no subject
no subject
People aren't obligated to let someone else kill them because it would upset you if they defended themselves.
I hope your sanctimony is soothing to your soul.
no subject
Not what I said, or even what I implied, but you're intent on twisting whatever I'm saying into whatever you want to see.
Consider: the mirror.
no subject
[ Clea has sufficient size, speed, and strength that she's not overly concerned for her own well being. She may also be taking advantage of the definition of 'weaponry'. ]
If it wasn't your intent it's fine then. We should ignore the consequences of your suggestion. You mean well, that's all that matters. Your suggestion puts risk on others, I said as such, and you were immediately defensive. You deflect questioning of your reasoning.
Locking up the weaponry will not prevent deaths, it may reduce them at the cost of increasing risk for certain people. This seems to bother you less than being questioned.
no subject
no subject
[So he can tell people how recalcitrant she is?]
no subject
My name's Jayce.
no subject
Knowing your name doesn't make me more inclined to agree with you or think your tone is warranted.
no subject
That said, Clea:
My intent is not to make any group of people more at risk for danger. Your estimations of what groups are more in danger than others is based in your own perceptions and biases, which you continued to take issue with on me personally. Youāre just as free to not respond to me as you were to respond to begin with. But considering you seem to think that my request somehow holds more weight than anyone elseās here, really, thank you. Itās a great compliment for someone to assume I have such sway, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Having a weapon for ādefensive purposesā implies thereās a clear cut line of what marks itself as defense or not. Perceived threats and real ones could look exactly the same in less than two days. By your logic, any child should have the right to shoot anyone theyāre scared of. You know. āTo bridge the gap.ā
Now, if you had any real questions that arenāt thinly veiled attacks on me while simultaneously calling me defensive, Iād be willing to listen and answer them.
no subject
You claim I read you uncharitably when you do the same. I never said you were immune to harm, and yet you claimed as such. You claim I'm endorsing people killing one another when I have done no such thing. The closest thing I had done to insult you before you became defensive and dismissive was point out that you handled this in a very male way - pointing out one of your biases. Your immediate response to your ideas being critiqued was to say 'go away' and to ignore the issue rather than address it. That does not lead me to believe you are acting out of genuine concern but rather out of ego.
[ On an unrelated note...]
Sciel's suggestion has merit. I volunteer to assist.
If the vulnerable decide to hide, they will need to be watched to ensure that they can be freed if something happens. This person will also need to be someone who can harden their heart: If they see something in their hiding place and want out, the person guarding needs to be able to refuse them, even if they express severe distress.
no subject
Your central concern is that people without physical strength are inherently defenseless without a weapon when Iāve said they arenātā thatās your core issue. I donāt know why you need me to lay out a step-by-step plan on how someone can protect themself without a weapon. No solutionās going to fit all situations.
Your āevaluation and critiqueā of my idea has been criticism with no construction, and reduction of it to my gender or what I look like. How else could I interpret everything youāve said as not amounting to āuncharitable?ā Not something you do when you actually have the best interest of a discussion at heart.
I have more concern for the people here than you have blood in your body. If you want to falsely interpret that as ego, thatās your problem, not mine.
If you want to assist Sciel, then talk to her.
Don't know why you're bringing that up to me.
no subject
You've said they aren't at risk - I disagree. Can you explain why you consider an unstable person much stronger and faster than you not to be a risk? You assert and expect others to bow to your judgements without question. You claim you don't want to lay out a step-by-step, which is more evasion. If you wish to discuss tactics, you must be willing to discuss them.
Why would I provide advice when you make it clear you would not listen to it?
If you want others to do the work, then fine. I would expect the best compromise would be to lock up all the projectiles as they could hit innocents if they're shot off randomly, but to allow close arms. Another possibility is the one discussed earlier where those who are a danger remove themselves. We could also attempt to create a system where we segregate people in different regions according to physical ability so that if hostilities do occur, they're likely to happen on even footing and therefore less likely to end in a fatality. If someone is far enough gone to mindlessly attack someone else, they will likely lack the faculties to cross large amounts of territory.
I brought up your sex as it is relevant. It is not a 'reduction' - the atmosphere of a room full of women will shift when an inebriated or otherwise impaired man enters regardless of how outnumbered he is. Most women will not feel safe alone on the streets at night even if nobody is armed. The assumption that someone who is unarmed is not as dangerous is not one that a woman would likely make.
Are you concerned? Because you just waved away my concerns with "No solutionās going to fit all situations." (Except for yours, of course, and the people who are impacted are just necessary casualties.) It seems your concern might be selective.
Sciel seems to desire for you have a coordinating role. I agree I would rather have her in charge. Her judgement is better than yours.
Because if a plan is executed, it should be executed properly.
no subject
You almost got me, you know. You almost got me into some endless, meaningless debate with you before I realized how much of my time you're wasting.
Have fun executing your own plans.
no subject