Emancipation of the Dugongs
My Fellow Templars,
I wish to bring to the fore a matter of great discontent in my mind. Although this question has not been posed in these elections, and no candidates have supported my position, I believe that in this time of excitement and enthusiasm inspired by the prospective dethronement of the tyrannical hotchips, we must reflect too on these harder questions. Our optimism is, too be sure, firmly justified and should continue unabated; this is a place where goats’ milk and yams’ honey freely flows to sate our yearning tongues. The clan is now Eight Years, One Month, and Eighteen Days old, and while skeptics and naysayers have long predicted our demise, we have proven ourselves a vital folk even amid the treacherous waters of academics, occupations, relationships, and insanity; the raging malestroms of examinations, office parties, social dramas, nervous breakdowns, and spinal dislodgements. I cannot understate my confidence in our future: conflicts do not break, but rather harden our bonds; our friendship does not decay with time, but rather proves its lasting nature. But if we are to march our maturing project forward, we must recognize its form, though resilient, is imperfect, and thus stands to improvement.
Each of us must evaluate, demand, and enact the renovations so as to shape from this shared possession a creation we can each confidently name one of which we are a part. We are a community, but we are also all individuals, and in every act here we must ask: is it the act of an individual, true to myself, or the effect of desiring to belong to this community? Certainly, if we are individuals, we will tug against one another one those questions which we disagree, but we will also be able to proudly declare, ‘This is what I fought for, here is the evidence’. If we allow ourselves to be subjected to the community, then we will never ask if we are genuinely content. We should be allowed to tear it apart over our questions; we have proven already that it can be mended to form from the most violently mangled shreds. So it is that I bring to you the Question of Dugong Slavery. Many of you will reject my charges, but if I shake the confidence of at least one, my efforts shall be vindicated. Here I recall the words of the American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison:
It was under the auspices of Darkflame that this barbaric practise was first imposed, and while I have elsewhere denied the legitimacy of his rule, I will speak no further on the matter to preserve the purity of my argument. His intentions were to demonstrate the generosity and enlightenment of his regime, but this act poisoned our long-standing relations with the noble race of dugong. Was it not with the dugongs that lonely seafarers would find the opportunity for fraternization, maintaining their affirmation of heterosexuality? Have their hilarious antics not amused generations of children, calmed the nervous broads and soothed the souls of hysterical dames? But now dugongs are chained in the hundreds, hauled arounds as the grand retinue of vain templars. The practise, while never founded on sound principles, was largely contained at its inception. Dugongs were kept in the company of only the most charming templars, their every need readily met by the riches of their keepers. But other templars soon grew jealous of these aristocrats’ prizes, and the government, seeking to demonstrate the prosperity of its age, relaxed the rules on the trade of dugongs. Their welfare was no longer guarded, the circumstances of their acquisition no longer mattered, and thus entered an intelligent and beautiful beast into common currency. The most ignomious sections of society are today allowed to barter on the lives of these misunderstood people. But it does not matter whether or not these dugongs were opulently ornamented or cruelly abused, the principle is, and always has been, evil. Dugongs have been reduced, humiliated, and subjected to the will of individuals who have no more right to control their fates than you or I have to control each other’s self-expression and realization. That is why I have never given or sold a dugong, nor have I ever happily accepted a dugong. It is a vain and ignoble practise and I have lobbied for its cessation from the day of its inception.
The argument for dugongs has often focused on the practical rather than principle, and the reasons for this are obvious enough. The latter should not be subjected to the former; it is unfortunate that some here are disbelievers in the importance of the principle. But here too I will meet and challenge my opponent, if that is what it takes to reverse the course of his thought. My opponents argue that the dugong trade encourages activity, that the reward is the basis for the resurgence and persistence of this community’s life. I do not believe that the dugongs have ever promoted activity; although I am without the benefit of statistics on the matter, I have enough experience to know that activity fluctuates most with the various projects and initiatives of the members, as well as their availability. In the case of the latter, the dugongs are of no significance whatsoever. The traders’ rebuttal is that the initiatives are motivated by the prospect of dugong gain. But it is always in the response of my community that I find my satisfaction, in the constant debate and extension of ideas. And here it is that dugongs are destructive; if it is enough to click a button, rather than to weigh in on a particular humorous image, or comment on an exhaustive exposition such as this, then why not simply do that? If this easy recourse is not available, then templars will be forced to press on a debate, as they have done for ages. Here it is we find the death of a great tradition: the “I’m with” signs. Though not extinguished totally by the new trade, along with the invasion of the elephants it appears to be on its last legs. We cannot attribute to this vile trade any promotion of activity on these forums.
The second part of the argument made by those who uphold this practise is its aggrandizement of the holder. A newbie hungrily looks upon the dugongs and reserves their respect for those who most readily display their possessions. The traders argue, “We have created an institution for demonstrating good practise in this community by initiating the trade.” No! No! No! I must abolish this myth that a community can at all be founded on such shallow indications of status. We are a people who create, from the age of the myths to the spam threads to our ingenious games, our joy has always been in the construction of great monuments in which to integrate our humour and build our memories. The dugong trade is a base and common one, and affirmations of “Certified Awesomeness” are now committed to ephemeral motions, single posts typically of minor and passing significance. It is no longer the celebration of a deliberate act, but a sea of forgotten impulses, whose commerce is swift but whose material productions are ultimately disposable. The dugong promotes not the satisfaction of creation but the accumulation of ratifications; the templar is no longer the artist but the factory, the goodness of his works affirmed by the reception of coinage. The spirit of the artist is kept alive in our community by a few, so it is not entirely in danger, but it is no longer bred in our younger generation, and it is upon the dugong trade that this must be blamed. It is harmful not only to our dugongs, but to their keepers, who point not to their creations to prove their quality but count the heads of their fettered dugongs to demonstrate their value in a quantity.
I have presented my arguments to justify my guarding of a controversial position, and I invite a response from those who argue for the trade.For those who support my position, please add your signature to my own, so we may represent a new and freer spirit as we bring this clan into a new term.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Signed,
SoggyFrog
