Is Having Peace Better Than Being Right?
What two guys talking loudly in the library taught me.
Hey friend👋
I forgot to review the January experiment to enjoy writing again. Two posts a week, remember? As we enter the second week of February, I wonder how I should best approach this…
Let’s ignore it and start a new experiment! ╰(*°▽°*)╯
Okay, hear me out. This month (though it’s a little late to announce already *ouch*), I’m trying out one post every Thursday. Coincidentally, we began last Thursday — the first one this month. The end goal is still the same — to enjoy writing again, sustainably. At the end of February, we will have two publishing cadences to compare for the best one.
For now, let’s enjoy this week’s story :3
I am in the library.
For 30 minutes, two guys have been talking out loud with each other. Remember, I am in the library. I am also using the present tense because I am writing this story while they are still on it right now.
They are at fault. Library, remember? What's the right thing to do?
Ask them politely to go outside and take a walk (a.k.a. fuck off)
Report the incident at the front desk.
Just bear with it. They will stop soon.
Now, 40 minutes have passed since they stuck together so much that Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 are child's play. Oh, they have just stopped, finally. But they are still sitting there so it may continue soon.
At this point, you can guess which path I chose. Yes, the third option — I tried to bear with it.
In the 40 minutes they were talking, there were points in time when it felt unbearable. Once, I stood up from my seat and walked from my carrel towards them. They stopped immediately. Note that they could not see me as we were separated by some bookshelves. So, they stopped likely due to the sound I made when leaving my seat and walking towards them, or my killing intent.
I would like to think it was the latter.
Halfway through, I abandoned the mission (a.k.a. chickened out) as there was no immediate evidence to shut them up. It would be better to tell them off in the middle of their loud feat. I walked between the bookshelves and then to the toilet. I washed my hands and looked at myself in the mirror.
Yeah, I'm a chicken #confirmed.
Then, I went back to my carrel and they began talking again. If I'm a chicken for chickening out, they are chicken poo-poos for talking out loud in the library.
At this moment I try to guess what you are thinking.
Why are you being such a wimp?
Why are talking bad about them now? Why didn’t you tell them earlier?
Why are you mad? Didn't you write before about dealing with anger towards mean people, like those two chicken poo-poos?
Yes, I am mad. It is one of those times when I wonder if working hard to “save the world” is worth it when it also means saving this kind of people. Sorry. I'm taking this too far. As if I'm a superhero/god and they are disgustingly bad people only god can deal with.
In Why Are Some People So Mean?, I quoted two lines,
If you are willing to look at another person's behavior toward you as a reflection of the state of their relationship with themselves rather than a statement about your value as a person, then you will, over a period of time cease to react at all.
—Yogi Bhalan
No matter how much you hate some people, remember that they could never run away from being them.
These helped to bring down the surging rage in me. But I still felt unsatisfied.
🕊️ Is having peace better than being right?
I considered another line I came across many years ago when Facebook still existed (oh wait it is still here #amjokingplsdontsueme).
Having peace is better than being right.
Back then, I couldn't understand it. It's like telling someone who sees wrongdoing to keep quiet for "peace". It is wrong. I'm sure somewhere in the legal world not reporting a crime is a crime itself. Even if it's not, it is still morally wrong.
Even now, I still find the line unfair. Does that mean I should bear with those two chicken poo-poos even if they were at fault and I would be right to (politely) tell them off? Should I have chosen to be wrong for the sake of peace?
But I did not have peace, my friend. During the 40 mins, at least.
If I were to describe it, it was like having a pinball bouncing around in your hollow human body. The pinball represents anger, hatred, and annoyance directed at those people. But because this pinball was not released, it kept bouncing around and inflicting damage on you, in the form of disappointment.
"Why didn't you tell them off?”
“Why are you being such a chicken?"
All of a sudden, it became my fault.
🦄 It was indeed my fault
I wasn't the only one in the wrong, though. They were at fault, too, for talking out loud in the library. But I was also at fault for not speaking out — hence I had no right to complain when smelling the chicken poo-poos.
So when I think about the line "having peace is better than being right" again, I feel that it doesn't apply here. I should have told them off (politely). Maybe they didn't know they were too loud? Well, I'm giving them the benevolent benefit of the doubt here. Who doesn't know not to talk loud in a library? Oh, right, chicken poo-poos don’t.
I should have at least tried that. If they didn't care, then I could have reported the case to the front desk and let them handle it.
Why?
Because there was no peace by not being right, at least in this case. It doesn't feel good to suck it up when you're clearly in the right and someone is clearly in the wrong. And because I didn't tell them off, I denied them the chance to know they fucked up and learn from this social embarrassment of being chicken poo-poos in public. They could have learned to be more considerate next time.
So, I was at fault, too. Urgh.
⚖️ It is not an absolute law
“Having peace is better than being right" is not a law you must follow, but it is still a good piece of advice sometimes.
How?
Say, a service crew (waiter/waitress) gets your order wrong. "Having peace" means not telling him/her about it and just accepting the wrong order as is.
But this is when the law doesn't apply. Because
You likely don't feel peaceful eating something you didn't order, especially when you have to pay for the wrong order, and
He/she might also mess up the following orders, like serving the next customer's food with your food.
Then, how does this law help?
In the same example, it means telling the crew about the wrong order politely and not being an angry ass just because you are right. To me, this is what it means by “Having peace is better than being right”.
🍭 Maybe I'm just sugarcoating it
Okay, here's a better example.
Imagine you are in class. The professor made a little grammatical error in his/her words. "Being right" means pointing it out in class because you are "right". But my friend, it's a Math class, not an English class. The error is insignificant compared to the knowledge you should be paying attention to.
This is when the law applies — you don't be an ass. You have peace by ignoring this insignificant mistake and focusing on the actual meat of the class.
But didn't you say that not speaking up means denying someone a chance to learn?
Well, you can always tell the prof about it after class, if you want to. But remember, it is an insignificant problem. Being right in an insignificant problem is insignificant, especially when having peace is a significant return.
Alright, let's do one more.
Your best friend's dog just passed away. When consoling your friend, you remember that he/she still owes you $10. "Having peace" means not mentioning it and getting the money back now.
Why? Because it is not the right time, you little chicken poop! Having peace is better than being right in this case.
👌 Let's make it less confusing
The law — in its original form "Having peace is better than being right" — is flawed.
It is confusing. Most quotes are also confusing.
"Never give up"? Does it mean I should never give up? Never means forever, you know. Does it apply to smoking? Never give up even when it kills and breaks your life apart? Never give up on a relationship even when it is toxic?
No, you little chicken poo-poo!
Most quotes are confusing because they are quotes — words taken from somewhere. They are short but appear to be absolute and comprehensive. However, they are not meant to be. No law, principle, or advice is meant to be absolute and comprehensive. It depends on your interpretation and the context you are in.
Okay, before I overthink it further, let's improve the law.
Having peace is sometimes better than being right.
This sounds clearer, doesn't it? Adding "sometimes" reminds you to stop being a lazy chicken poo-poo and think about whether the law/principle/advice can be applied in your context. Don't just take things as is.
If we modify it further,
Being right doesn't mean you can be an ass and not settle things peacefully.
Don't be a chicken poo-poo.
—Thomas🦙
P.S.
Okay, that was a wild ride. For some reason, I feel that “f**k” is more offensive than “fuck”. At least it has some elements of “duck” in it, which lowers the offensiveness and makes it…well, cuter.
Sorry for the language 🦆
🏆 Weekly Gold
Each week, I share something I found interesting with you. It could be a song, a book, a quote, or a video that blew my mind. Here’s the gold this week 👇
Other credits:
Cover photo by Jeffrey Hamilton on Unsplash
Those two chicken poo-poos, for giving me a content idea.
Leni, for sharing a friend's “wrong order” story and how he handled it.
Slothy, for sharing her service crew experience and why wrong orders should be brought up.