In my very few years on this planet, I’ve seen conflict over morals and ideals run rampant. Especially in the current age of 2018, where sensitivity to differing views and intolerance for those who think differently is at an all-time high, I think it’s important for humanity to acknowledge a pretty simple concept that I feel people often ignore: Life isn’t black and white. It’s a million shades of grey.
![Image result for life isn't black and white](https://thesidetalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/black-white.jpg?w=660)
Too often, we see two people arguing two extremes, both people under the impression that they’re viewpoint is not only superior, but correct. Often times, these inflammatory beliefs are not only radicalized, but objectively harmful. There are people who like to see politics as a binary when in reality, it is a spectrum. “Either you’re with me, or you’re not” is a terrible mentality. The idea that only two contrasting beliefs, in any facet of life, exist, will ultimately lead to mass conflict. So many people are under the impression that thought and perspective is a two-way-street, that politicians will run for president under one of the two major parties as opposed to labeling themselves as independents for the sheer purpose of gathering more votes.
![Image result for 2016 election votes for independents](https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2016/06/political_party_pie.png)
Interesting how despite this data, we’ve never had an independent in office before.
The fifth entry in the Pokémon series, “Pokémon Black and White” has lore almost entirely surrounded by this concept. It tells the tale of two brothers, the “Twin Heroes,” both of which shared ownership of a powerful dragon. It’s said that the brothers had a heated argument over the pursuit of truth vs the pursuit of ideals, and which one was “better.” Their dragon, torn apart by their conflict, was unable to chose a side and instead, split into two separate dragons. The two dragons are colored entirely black, and entirely white, respectively. Leaving a third dragon behind, this one being an empty shell of a dragon, is colored in multiple shades of grey. It can be inferred that this “empty shell,” which can later in the game, be combined with one of the two dragons, depending on the players choice, represents the idea that there is more capacity for free thought outside of two contrasting ideas.
![Image result for reshiram vs zekrom fan art](https://img00.deviantart.net/cc8c/i/2011/063/b/a/zekrom_vs_reshiram_by_ninja_jamal-d3avast.jpg)
I believe from this idea, it’s important to acknowledge that arguing the value of two contrasting ideals in absolutes, as if one is objectively better than the other, is a meaningless and impossible feat, as rarely will there ever be a choice that is truly and objectively better than the other. Acknowledging your opposition’s ability to think freely is key to having a productive conversation, as the second you truly believe in all actuality that your viewpoint is the only one that should exist, you’ve done your opposition and their ability to think differently than you a complete injustice. You’ve also completely disregarded the ability to be indifferent, or even believe that both sides have genuinely compelling arguments, and that a combination of both perspectives is the most optimal form of thinking.
Just as the courts believed that dancing in the woods meant witchcraft, the idea that a way of thinking must be supplementary to another, and that they are mutually exclusive, is a very deadly thing to assume. For example, you hear someone say “I am pro-life!” If your first assumption is “This person is a republican,” then you’re, in some capacity, contributing to the problem that I am referring to. In a greater capacity, this inductive reasoning will do more harm when used in the opposite direction: assuming belief based on party. If you hear “This person is a republican,” and your first assumption is “This person is racist,” then you are greatly contributing to this issue. To assume such a link would be doing that person a great amount of disservice, as for all you know, they may be the leader of a civil rights group. One’s set of beliefs, unless they explicitly have beliefs that directly out them as a “racist,” should never be used to assume such terrible things about a person. You could be dealing with someone who has stated directly that they are homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigration, but to assume from this that they are a racist as well, believe it or not, is a harmful perspective to take. Though that person is probably human trash, you can’t make inflammatory assumptions about a person just because you believe such assumptions fit their moral archetype.
![Image result for argument](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/12/28/3991241-argue-divorce-Getty-NEWS_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqrIkI4M6qRwmge7XKN2LlVmJzAVRltvWQH4D4CTm88pg.jpg?imwidth=450)
At the end of the day, we are all human. Our social qualities, our ability to tolerate one another, to be nice to each other, and to respect each other, should be our priorities when deciding who we want to associate with or who we respect. Unless one’s opinions are harmful (which in-an-of-itself, is subjective), to disassociate with someone on the basis that you do not agree with their opinions, especially if you had been good friends with them up until you had a falling-out over said opinions, is a petty and immature thing to do. Until we learn to accept each other, we, as people, in my opinion, will begin to regress. Remember that “its not always right or wrong, as long as your spirit’s strong. It’s not always win or lose: It’s the road you chose. It’s not always black and white; your heart always knows what’s right.”
![Image result for pokemon black and white starters](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/pokemon/images/3/36/Pokemon-black-white-starter-names-snivy-tepig-ohawott.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110401105604)
Thanks for reading
-Aleck B.