Humans are strange creatures. We are fine with definites; well defined and concrete concepts are well within our comprehension. But when the lines blur, when boundaries bleed into each other there is a distinct inability from many people to adjust, to compensate, to incorporate the new knowledge.
What this means is that we are radicals in many elements of thought. It is the black and the white, the yes and the no, the inability to see a spectrum of ideas without being on one side of the scale or the other.
Or in the worst case scenario as a homo sapien, you might not be sure on an issue. The horror! You may need more time to make up your mind. You might simply be unable to come to a decision on a matter – you are indecisive! Even more horror! In this life it is better to be a decision maker even if it is the wrong one, rather than make up your mind based on the facts available and taking your time. Especially in politics.
This leads me to the issue of free speech or whatever dumb name it comes under. Free speech is by definition the right to say anything you want. It’s that simple.
But by trying to control some aspects while permitting others, free speech becomes a diluted idea. People become unsure of what they can say. “Is it acceptable?” continually pre-empting every utterance. Political correctness would be a clear case of this. And in actual fact by stymying and monitoring very closely what we think or say, we think that thought even more, because you have to be overly conscious over each word. By trying not to think of something, we actually increase the number of times we do so, because in order to supress a thought we must actively attend to it like an aggressive babysitter. Psychology studies on racism have proven as much.
Ultimately you cannot have it both ways. And because we become so polarised on our views – usually at one extreme of a scale – we struggle to deal with new information and struggle to accept notions that do no lie on the right side of white.
In relation to free speech, it either needs to revert to what it should be; people saying what they want, or stay the same and gradually we are so self-conscious, that what we do say may offend someone, we stick to the same old conversations, the same worn and rutted subjects incapable of deviating from ‘safe’ topics for fear of a backlash.
I don’t like racism, radicalism, indoctrination or any number of other aspects of communication. If people are racist and are vocal about it, they will be ridiculed and soon learn that their prejudice is not acceptable. Radicals will have some listen to them, but so what? If they do that is their choice. Secondly anyone with sense will see the views as warped and deranged. Let idiots be radical. Those who aren’t will not accept them.
People who indoctrinate however are a different breed. They are actively trying to assuage us, should we listen to them. Some people have no choice but to listen. They are actively forcing themselves and their views upon others whether they want to hear them or not. This is unacceptable. People should not be subject to the views of others in a kind of ‘you’re with us or you’re not’ idea.
The main problem with us is we all want the world to be how we would like it, often not caring or even attempting to find the views of another. Everybody does want to rule the world even if only in a microcosm of their own daily lives.
Recent events like that in the UK just make me irritated beyond belief. Feminist groups are trying to have mens magazines (not even the ‘dirty’ ones) removed from shelves. The ones where women pose scantily clad on the front cover, titilatingly. Is an issue like this worthy of news? Of human time and effort? Of dedicating a cause to?
Having covered being mindful of others views, I have considered the matter. But this is not a serious problem on any level. Womens magazines are far more detrimental. You have celebrities having every tiny patch of cellulite highlighted as if it is some national disgrace. There are fat and thin pictures. There are skinny bikini pictures, the same as on a lot of magazines. There are sex tips. Every issues there is, ‘How to have the most incredible sex – 20 news positions’. Which judging by all the previous issues with the same promises means the Kama Sutra is merely an introductory text.
The double standards is appalling. That isn’t even the main thing here. It is a minority group, feminists, much like a minority group of anything, making their presence known because they somehow have a problem with it. The statistics must be damning. If even 10000 feminists in the UK were against covered breasts, that would represent a statistic of 0.0158% out of a 63,000,000 population. Suggesting that this is an issue that not enough people are bothered by, and in a democracy this should equate to no ban being made.
That logic does not carry to people who are being downtrodden and neglected however. Because hopefully we would automatically wish to help them. For instance, old people without enough fuel allowance. In the lads mag case, there is no one in trouble or of need of rescuing. It is simply a small group trying to decide what is ok for everyone. Politics is the same of course but I don’t see a change in that any time soon..
This world will leave you weary if you let it.