Social protocols condition people to come to a middle ground between the lowest level of tolerance for said subject matter, and the highest sensitivity of how one might be triggered by said subject matter. So in cases where I speak with a person other than myself and my dog, I must take into consideration the range of tolerance, as well as what is a possible trigger for them to react a certain way. This is how I perceive as ‘keeping the peace’. In other words, I don’t speak my mind out in public, the way I do with confidants, because my confidants know when I speak, the words may not necessarily reflect the meaning of my heart. Remember, our literary vocabulary is limited to what we know through reading things, but our knowledge is reflective of our thought process not restricted by words.
In short, my confidants hear my heart, regardless of the words I use.
Of course, everything comes in gradients since one should adjust to the dynamics of the various people in the vicinity, to aid in the productivity of the subject matter. Otherwise, you come off as any set-in-stone label given by common society because of the way you act, regardless of the company around you. A LOT of people are like this. They behave as if the entire world revolves around them, feeling entitled that this is the only way to go, because in their minds, “If they don’t accept me for who I am, then they can go fuck off for all I care.” This mentality is fine, if people around you are toxic abusive assholes, but this mentality isn’t fine, if people around you wish to ‘keep the peace’.
Anyway, decisions, choices, thoughts, feelings, and whatever related subject matter are all variables on a table of charts created for the sole purpose to categorize where they all belong in the social circles of humanity. In this regard, while many people cannot move pass what they deem as barriers in emotional discomfort, I am easily able to move pass these things because I don’t see things like this as a show stopper for continuance. I see things like this as one variable in a mass of variables – one possibility out of many at the same time. If I cannot drive from Vancouver to Ottawa, I can always take a plane, a train, a bus, ride with someone else, ride my bike there, or walk there. If I cannot engage Darya in X, Y, and/or Z, I still have A, B, C, and D, as well as the rest of the alphabet to contend to.
I think people shouldn’t shut themselves off to other possibilities, just because one or two of their most preferred possibilities are cut off. Then again, wanting to engage people in one specific way, doesn’t mean it’s the only thing I want to do. It also doesn’t mean that was the first thing that came to mind. It really depends on such a broad myriad of circumstances micro and macro building and finally, triggering such thoughts for engagement.