Picking Sides
Nobody cares about villains. All they know is that the villains are evil and they must be stopped. It's so much easier to take sides when you've got labels on people. They could be religious people or atheists, the government or the opposition, or Android or Apple fans. They can take on many forms, all depending on where you stand.
As long as you are against these villains just because you are on the other side, you're good for nothing. This is the problem that is happening. People are reacting and over-reacting to things without reason. With LGBT (I actually find that term condescending), you can be the bad guy for recognizing their rights or for thinking it is another social ill. Not many care to implore. As much as I'd like to say that the homophobes have the silliest reasons, those who are supporting the gay community are guilty of the same charge. There are those who fall in between these two examples but for the sake of the discussion, let's keep it simple and just use the extreme ones.
To those homophobes, let's take religion out of the picture because whatever you invisible friend said doesn't apply here. Are you against homosexuals because it is not normal? Slavery used to be normal but that's illegal now. Women weren't allowed to go to school but now they are studying whatever they want at any level they want. So what is normal? It is what the majority of the society see fit. The thing about society is that it evolves and so does its values. So that means the arguement that homosexuality is not part of our culture is nonsense. It is as good as saying that you are against it just because you think others feel the same way. It is as good as saying because your invisible friend told you so. It's not valid.
Moving on to the other side, why are you supporting gay people? Because it is their right to love anybody they want? Because they didn't choose to be that way? Because they can't help but to feel that way? Those are decent points but if you are hating homophobes, bear this in mind. Some homophobes can't help but to feel that way. Some homophobes didn't choose to be homophobes. How did you expect them to react when they've been taught all their lives that a married couple consists of a husband and a wife? If you judge these homophobes just because they don't agree with you, you are no better than them.
So which side is right? There is none. No matter what you do, you will always be the villain to someone on the other side. I don't know if those who are supporting gay rights actually understand why are they doing it. It will be scary to think that people are disagreeing with each other without knowing why. If you have a good reason, you don't need to pick a side to have a stand. Don't hate homosexuals or homophobes just because.
If you're still wondering what's my stand on the matter, I don't have one. I believe that anyone can do anything they like as long as it does not jeopardize the rights of others.
As long as you are against these villains just because you are on the other side, you're good for nothing. This is the problem that is happening. People are reacting and over-reacting to things without reason. With LGBT (I actually find that term condescending), you can be the bad guy for recognizing their rights or for thinking it is another social ill. Not many care to implore. As much as I'd like to say that the homophobes have the silliest reasons, those who are supporting the gay community are guilty of the same charge. There are those who fall in between these two examples but for the sake of the discussion, let's keep it simple and just use the extreme ones.
To those homophobes, let's take religion out of the picture because whatever you invisible friend said doesn't apply here. Are you against homosexuals because it is not normal? Slavery used to be normal but that's illegal now. Women weren't allowed to go to school but now they are studying whatever they want at any level they want. So what is normal? It is what the majority of the society see fit. The thing about society is that it evolves and so does its values. So that means the arguement that homosexuality is not part of our culture is nonsense. It is as good as saying that you are against it just because you think others feel the same way. It is as good as saying because your invisible friend told you so. It's not valid.
Moving on to the other side, why are you supporting gay people? Because it is their right to love anybody they want? Because they didn't choose to be that way? Because they can't help but to feel that way? Those are decent points but if you are hating homophobes, bear this in mind. Some homophobes can't help but to feel that way. Some homophobes didn't choose to be homophobes. How did you expect them to react when they've been taught all their lives that a married couple consists of a husband and a wife? If you judge these homophobes just because they don't agree with you, you are no better than them.
So which side is right? There is none. No matter what you do, you will always be the villain to someone on the other side. I don't know if those who are supporting gay rights actually understand why are they doing it. It will be scary to think that people are disagreeing with each other without knowing why. If you have a good reason, you don't need to pick a side to have a stand. Don't hate homosexuals or homophobes just because.
If you're still wondering what's my stand on the matter, I don't have one. I believe that anyone can do anything they like as long as it does not jeopardize the rights of others.
Speed Doesn't Kill
Say, there is a country where the national speed limit is 120kph. One day, the minister in charge of regulating the speed limit saw a pothole on the road and he thought it was too dangerous. Certainly, the potholes can be undone but making sure the road is absolutely smooth is unrealistic. So he lowered the speed limit to 100kph.
The next day, he saw a mini hatchback on the road doing 100kph and it was so unstable and almost caused an accident. Again, the speed limit is lowered to 80kph.
Then, he saw a motorcyclist on the road doing 80kph and he thought it's not safe to be doing that fast on such a small motorcycle, so he set the speed limit to 60kph.
Then he thought overtaking was too dangerous of a maneuver, so all the roads in the country were changed into a single lane.
So the people got angry and burned his house down.
Anyway, the reason he lowered the speed limit is perfectly acceptable. Driving at such speed was dangerous. But his solutions could have been better. He could have made driving schools produce better drivers so that they are able to drive safely at high speed. If anyone wanted to remove danger absolutely from driving, then that person should walk if he wants to go somewhere. No matter how good the road condition is, how safe the car is, how careful the drivers are, there will always be danger on the road. So it is not a question of removing danger. It is a matter of making drivers more prepared for such events.
By that logic, people don't need authorities to ban or prohibit anything they see as a possible danger. There's been talk about how it is "haram" to celebrate mother's day. Let's recall what has been banned for the sake of keeping Muslims safe from derailing. Celebrating Valentine's day. The use of the word "Allah" in the Malay version of the Bible. Joining rallies. The best has to be the poco poco though. No one saw that coming.
Whether such issues pose a threat would be another matter. Banning everything just because there is a threat that it would demoralise Muslims is not the right approach. Because then, they might as well ban Avengers because Thor is a demigod, or ban Harry Potter because it promotes magic.
Given the right exposure and proper education, such "threats" are nothing.
Instead of banning everything, why not produce better Muslims? One who would not be swayed from his beliefs and morality from doing the poco poco dance while wearing a Manchester United jersey who also celebrates Valentine's day and Mother's day.
While you're at it, make sure they stick to the left lane if they think I'm driving too fast.
The next day, he saw a mini hatchback on the road doing 100kph and it was so unstable and almost caused an accident. Again, the speed limit is lowered to 80kph.
Then, he saw a motorcyclist on the road doing 80kph and he thought it's not safe to be doing that fast on such a small motorcycle, so he set the speed limit to 60kph.
Then he thought overtaking was too dangerous of a maneuver, so all the roads in the country were changed into a single lane.
So the people got angry and burned his house down.
Anyway, the reason he lowered the speed limit is perfectly acceptable. Driving at such speed was dangerous. But his solutions could have been better. He could have made driving schools produce better drivers so that they are able to drive safely at high speed. If anyone wanted to remove danger absolutely from driving, then that person should walk if he wants to go somewhere. No matter how good the road condition is, how safe the car is, how careful the drivers are, there will always be danger on the road. So it is not a question of removing danger. It is a matter of making drivers more prepared for such events.
By that logic, people don't need authorities to ban or prohibit anything they see as a possible danger. There's been talk about how it is "haram" to celebrate mother's day. Let's recall what has been banned for the sake of keeping Muslims safe from derailing. Celebrating Valentine's day. The use of the word "Allah" in the Malay version of the Bible. Joining rallies. The best has to be the poco poco though. No one saw that coming.
Whether such issues pose a threat would be another matter. Banning everything just because there is a threat that it would demoralise Muslims is not the right approach. Because then, they might as well ban Avengers because Thor is a demigod, or ban Harry Potter because it promotes magic.
Given the right exposure and proper education, such "threats" are nothing.
Instead of banning everything, why not produce better Muslims? One who would not be swayed from his beliefs and morality from doing the poco poco dance while wearing a Manchester United jersey who also celebrates Valentine's day and Mother's day.
While you're at it, make sure they stick to the left lane if they think I'm driving too fast.
Protection
No, it's not safe sex. Even if some people think it would promote promiscuity and would be quite a matter to discuss, I'll save it for another day. We are constantly being protected by the authorities. Think of the concerts cancelled, the song lyrics censored, the books banned and my personal favourite, the tax on imported cars. All this done in the name to conserve our culture, to keep the young from negative influences, to prevent us from being social degenerates and of course to prevent Proton and Perodua from sinking.
But now, there is a more pressing issue. The BBC coverage on Bersih 3.0 has undergone a censorship by Astro to cut out the unpleasant bits, making it more newsworthy. Indeed, we need to be protected so that we won't do anything stupid like you know, vote for the opposition and stuff. I'm not a fan of the opposition despite my disagreements with the government.
I truly understand what Bersih is fighting for and I'm all for it, although Ambiga needs to plan a little better next time. The majority of the Bersih participants are only exercising their human rights, but with such a crowd, you'd need more control. It takes one idiot to make Bersih look bad and on Saturday, there were more than one.
Back to the main point, if there's any. If international news can be censored, what would stop a vote for the opposition from being ignored or tossed away just to "protect" us?
But now, there is a more pressing issue. The BBC coverage on Bersih 3.0 has undergone a censorship by Astro to cut out the unpleasant bits, making it more newsworthy. Indeed, we need to be protected so that we won't do anything stupid like you know, vote for the opposition and stuff. I'm not a fan of the opposition despite my disagreements with the government.
I truly understand what Bersih is fighting for and I'm all for it, although Ambiga needs to plan a little better next time. The majority of the Bersih participants are only exercising their human rights, but with such a crowd, you'd need more control. It takes one idiot to make Bersih look bad and on Saturday, there were more than one.
Back to the main point, if there's any. If international news can be censored, what would stop a vote for the opposition from being ignored or tossed away just to "protect" us?
we separated ourselves from animals, claiming our intelligence are far superior.
we drew a line on the map and we distinguish ourselves from our neighbours.
we gave names to those born in different colours.
we fought amongst ourselves in the name of our god and religion.
we created our own version of the truth.
we desperately tried to prove our strengths but conveniently made exceptions to our flaws.
we think so highly of ourselves that we perceive differences as imperfections.
the enemy only exists in the minds cluttered with irrational fears and the weak only exists for those who put themselves on pedestals.
humanity. what a joke.
we drew a line on the map and we distinguish ourselves from our neighbours.
we gave names to those born in different colours.
we fought amongst ourselves in the name of our god and religion.
we created our own version of the truth.
we desperately tried to prove our strengths but conveniently made exceptions to our flaws.
we think so highly of ourselves that we perceive differences as imperfections.
the enemy only exists in the minds cluttered with irrational fears and the weak only exists for those who put themselves on pedestals.
humanity. what a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)