We live in a democracy. A democracy is the height of judgment. We give
politicians the power to cheat and rule. We decide which politicians deserve
this power and then talk about on how and why they did so. All based on half
knowledge, smart guesses at best. So to start off; let’s remember that we
accept this as a standard (and in fact advocate democracy and governments). We
believe in right of majorities and most people who are not well educated think
that socialism is the best form of government. One cousin of mine went so far
as to say that we need monarchs to control us. And he has a master’s degree. This
isn’t a very uncommon notion in our society. Our society,
as it stands, strongly believes that majorities (and elected monarchs) should
have the right to decide how the minorities live (unless you are a minority, in
which case you want the minority to rule over the majority). Individual preferences
and circumstances be damned.
The above isn’t my point. I strongly believe that the ideas in the above
para are not ideal. But I had to mention the above example of what people
accept as normal in our (messed up) society so that those who get offended when
they think they are judged and commented on check where they stand.
I am the last one to judge someone without substantial information. I
strongly oppose decisions and actions based on half-information or on
information which cannot be reasonably assumed.
Problem is, it isn’t black and white. No one has a right never to be
offended. As Ricky Gevais famously says, it depends on the joke. In this case,
the facts of the case and the comment. And what the ultimate objective, or
point made in the judgment thereof, is. When someone expresses an opinion which
is reasonable and based on facts, one need not necessarily be offended. If a
non-religious person says that a person is immoral or ignorant or idiotic simply
based on the fact he is a Hindu or Christian, believes in a God etc., it is offensive,
accepted. That is not the same as saying that ‘Hinduism/ Christianity are not very
much logically consistent’. This is at the core of what I am trying to put out
here.
If a first person says to me that I am bald. I say, yes of course. If some
second stranger says that I don’t look handsome without any hair on my head; I
say ‘maybe not, not that it is any of your business, Asshole’. Even though I
don’t like talking to strangers, I get where he is coming from. But if som
third guy comes up and shouts outright that I am ugly, then I have a case to
get offended and justifiably look for some sort of recourse. The first
statement is a fact (a pretty grounded one at that). The second statement is an
opinion, but a neutral person can understand that it is not outrageous even if
I am personally not totally comfortable with the idea. Being a person who is
somewhat self-aware, I don’t mind being called out on not being the sexiest guy
alive. If I am not mistaken, most bald men know that this is the case with them
too. So, it is a reasonable statement. Even if it not a scientifically accurate
statement which can be proven without objections, I don’t get to be offended.
The other person is just expressing an opinion which is reasonable and
justifiable before a jury of reasonable people. The third statement (calling me
ugly) is simply uncalled for. The word ugly is quite subjective in the first
place and even if I am not handsome, I am certainly bearable in terms of looks.
So is your average man who happened to be bald. I know it’s a very fine line
and sometimes easily neglected but it is there nevertheless. The way to express
that comment, and the need or the trigger for it matters.
I can’t just keep shouting curses and commenting at someone even if I know
them to be true when they are not my business and do not affect my world. That
case is a problem. But if I have reasonable cause to express an opinion and
then do it such that I merely am expressing myself rather than create a fuss
around it, that should be fine.
For instance, if a guy is failing an exam since four attempts (four years).
And let’s say that exam is his only target off late and yet he isn’t making
much progress. How many attempts can he justify failing hopelessly even with
many mental and personal problems (assuming he has reasonable family and
financial conditions to pursue the education)? And if I express my doubt that
just maybe, he isn’t suited to the course, or maybe he is too unstable to
sustain the strain, does that amount to bad judgment? Can I call him out and
say that he should be doing a better job and that he disappointed up until this
point, or that he is simply distracted/ lazy and can he get his act together,
please? Where do my comments or opinions
stop being reasonable statements based on facts and start being ‘ugly’
offensive? Surely, calling him ‘loser’ is offensive, right, because he may be
very good at something else but stuck with this exam? What if this guy has been
my friend for long and is nagging a lot of times about how it is tough being
him, without taking any action about the situation? Do I still not get to say
anything that touches his sensibilities? What if I know that he choose to write
this exam and he is intelligent enough to pass it out before four attempts if he
put his concentration on it?
All decisions (and hence actions) a man takes are based on what he does or
doesn’t believe (principles). If a person didn’t work on his reasoning and
principles when he had a choice, he will end up believing what others tell you
to. I worked my ass off to be wherever I am, both on principles and on my
knowledge. Many guys I know succeeded because they worked. And everyone is
where they are solely because of the work they did on themselves (at least in
case of normal childhood and no disabilities). Now if a person’s life is messed-up,
then that is the reality of the matter. The reason is probably with that guy, and
what he did when he had the chance to build his life. Consequently his
standards, which are a reflection of his belief systems, are going to be below
par because he may not even know that standards matter.
He don’t get to feel sensitive when I look at world around me based on my
standards and say that his standards are low comparatively. Just like it isn’t
my problem if he brought himself to be in this position, it shouldn’t be my
problem that he gets offended as a direct consequence me saying what seems to
be reasonably the case (only when I have to, mind you). Maybe you can prove
that his standards are a lot higher than what I think of them and make me eat
my words and I will accept that I had wrong information, in which case you
still don’t get to be offended because I spoke the truth as I knew it then.
Matter of fact is that most people who do not want to be offended by being
called out on their actions/ decisions/ failures are invariably people trying
to manage their anxiety and weakness of character simply by avoiding those
sensitive topics. They made mistakes in their lives which they don‘t want to
look back on. They are not interested in untangling the mess, and hence lock
them up, as skeletons in a closet. Even when a mistake is not theirs, they are
still guilty because they only choose to lock it in their closet instead of
dealing with it. As these skeletons are accumulated in the closet, it becomes
too much to even think about its existence. And they are scared to death at the
prospect of remembering that it exists. They would rather die with it than open
it. So they expect others to shut up about these glaring issues so that they
don’t have to face their insecurity. Simply put, they use others to manage
themselves and expect others to comply willingly. In other words, they want others
to hide their opinions and lie (or not speak the truth) in order to satisfy their
inferior motives.
For one thing, no one has a right to demand me to lie or not express myself
as long as I am reasonable. Secondy, We live among other people. We are all
influenced by and influence the circle of people around us. As such, I have a
right not to have negative influences brought out by some others. If we know
each other and if you express directly or by actions that you are having a
tough time, that you are fighting all sorts of financial and personal issues,
that the world is rough and you failed because you don’t have a choice, I get
to say ‘Aren’t you the main reason it is tough for you? Is it that hard to
figure? You didn’t educate yourself when you had the chance, you got influenced
by the wrong people by your free will, you did many things wrong when you had
the chance to do it right, didn’t you?’
I will even put blame on your parents for not teaching you to teach yourself.
I am well within my rights to say all that simply because you are a part of my
world and I want it to be better than that. So you have to improve, or at least
face the mistakes you made and connect with that reality. The only other option
is that I will stop connecting with you even without my conscious effort. Whatever
may be the outcome of the situation, there is no case for anyone to get
offended/ hurt/ insulted whatsoever by my statements as long as my they are
grounded in facts of situation. It is not necessary that I walk in your shoes
or that I write your biography. But you may say that the reality is that that
person is in fact hurt despite all the above ‘theory’. Then I will say that it
is his problem to deal with, another small bone to add to the skeletons, and he
alone is responsible for it.