Judging People

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.