Involuntary Civilisation Vs Voluntary
If I can help it, I don't want to be around people I dislike.
Are you civil for the greater good? If you are, in what circumstances? Being involuntarily civil is mainly about the workplace, and making small talk with your colleagues. It's a complete different ball game to being civil with people in a friendship group. Whoever you choose to hang around, is a reflection of yourself. So you shouldn't force yourself to hang out with people, in your close circle who you don't want to be friends with, and the only reason that you decide to do so, is to keep the peace, in that circle & keep certain friendships.
But, my mother likes to say, that I'm judgmental, but I don't believe so, completely. I can only go off, what someone has shown to me, and it's all about their character, not mine. I'm not judgmental in the way you'd think of, when people judge others for just being a certain way, based off things like culture or financial status. In my eyes, someone has to do something in order for me, to change the perception of them, and in doing so, judge them for it. Judge them, accordingly, as you'd expect a judge to do. Not on the things that, make that person who they are, but what they choose to do. That's how it works in a trial, isn't it? It's not about whether, you have a degree or anything like that, it's about what have you done in order to be judged in this manner. That's the bigger question.
But linking that to civilization, being civil rubs off on you, and if you're like me, who holds their friendships in high esteem, you're against being civil, to soothe other people. It can resemble people pleasing, and sometimes being a people pleaser can be second nature to some people, and people pleasing gets you nowhere. It can sometimes effect your morals, or what you will put up with in your life. You should never live your life to please other people. It's your life.
But I mention the workplace in involuntary civilization, because there's no say in the matter. Making things tense in work, doesn't create a safe environment and people can't get their work done, because they're busy prioritizing drama, which is why you swallow your pride and push forwards. Bills, are what are on the table, and nonsensical squabble doesn't matter. But, choosing to be voluntarily civil takes courage, and only a rare few are actually able to do it. Me, not included in that few. I have to be loud, about indifferences. I have to speak my mind, otherwise I'll combust, and I've never been someone to forgive & forget. So, sure, I'll be civil, but only if its on my terms, and I feel its the right thing to do.
Maybe when I see other people being civil, there’s envy underneath the exterior I try so hard to maintain. That people they refuse to call ‘friends’, they can just cope being around them. It’s all in keeping your head down, in the same manner as of at work. Both situations require you to create some sort facade, in order to not let your emotions get the better of you. In this discussion, is there a clear distinction? Does the problem even start in being a forgiving person? If you are more inclined to be that, it may be easier to choose being civil or not civil. I spoke about keeping the peace, but it’s also not letting yourself miss out on opportunities, in being civil.
Can people just co-exist in the same space without any kind, of agreement? Sometimes I believe being civil with someone, looks like you’re friends with that person, and the line blurs into one. Can two people be civil without overstepping boundaries? And if you’re civil with that person, do they believe they have a friendship with you? That’s why, reaching the end of the article, it doesn’t feel like being civil just stops there. Either involuntarily or voluntarily, if for some reason, you’ve stopped being friends with someone, you should stay like that. You should remain, just that, and nothing more. If you are civil, it can make you have doubts into why the friendship ended, knowing the reason for it.
Is being civil always for the greater good?