Intolerance.
Intolerance of intolerance.
Intolerance of both kinds of intolerance.
Trying to find words… just deep sorrow.
Doesn’t matter who is right or wrong… so much rejection.
What is the use “winning” with such ideas if no matter who wins, half the country is left behind?
The promise of freedom becoming a war for sole control of narrative… I imagine India wondering what happened of the hope…
(Visited 145 times, 1 visits today)
Read the post. I can’t say I could understand it in entirety.
Perhaps I could understand this to some extent: “so much rejection.”
And then, this: “What is the use “winning” with such ideas if no matter who wins, half the country is left behind?”
It is only in response to the second that I want to point out: that people usually propound ideas that would benefit themselves as individuals – that is the most native instinct. But of course, our society lays great stress on thinking for ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. So, most of us try hard to convince others that we are thinking for a larger collective (say, religion, nation, the human race, etc.). Also, many times being seen as propagating certain ideas comes with its own sets of benefits – like getting publicity or favors from individuals, which on some occasions also get tied to one’s livelihood. Imagine a situation, wherein how much one earns and with how much ease, would be integrally tied with what ideas one is seen propagating – we are living in that kind of world. In such instances of strong incentives and disincentives that come attached with what ideas we are seen to be possessing, it would be unwise to believe that people say exactly what they have in their hearts. In fact, had that not been the case, words like ‘lie’, ‘dishonesty, ‘deception’, ‘political correctness’ would have never entered our dictionary. Even I’m not sure what I’m getting at, maybe, this simple fact that: let us not expect anyone to think of the benefit of the nation and then also air exactly what they think would benefit the nation, especially if what they speak publicly would be tied to how easy/difficult their life would become for them.
Read the post. I can’t say I could understand it in entirety.
Perhaps I could understand this to some extent: “so much rejection.”
And then, this: “What is the use “winning” with such ideas if no matter who wins, half the country is left behind?”
It is only in response to the second that I want to point out: that people usually propound ideas that would benefit themselves as individuals – that is the most native instinct. But of course, our society lays great stress on thinking for ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. So, most of us try hard to convince others that we are thinking for a larger collective (say, religion, nation, the human race, etc.). Also, many times being seen as propagating certain ideas comes with its own sets of benefits – like getting publicity or favors from individuals, which on some occasions also get tied to one’s livelihood. Imagine a situation, wherein how much one earns and with how much ease, would be integrally tied with what ideas one is seen propagating – we are living in that kind of world. In such instances of strong incentives and disincentives that come attached with what ideas we are seen to be possessing, it would be unwise to believe that people say exactly what they have in their hearts. In fact, had that not been the case, words like ‘lie’, ‘dishonesty, ‘deception’, ‘political correctness’ would have never entered our dictionary. Even I’m not sure what I’m getting at, maybe, this simple fact that: let us not expect anyone to think of the benefit of the nation and then also air exactly what they think would benefit the nation, especially if what they speak publicly would be tied to how easy/difficult their life would become for them.