hello i have things to say

tok & misc blog | more opinion than anything

[4181writes]

Why do facts sometimes not change our mind?

Personal opinion. Opinion developed on pre-existing experiences or facts, that stand strong in the face of new information. That, or just carelessness.

Based on an experience, I may believe that acupressure is the one sure way to relieve headaches. If new research — new, unbiased, as true as it gets research — reveals that acupressure does, in fact, have no relieving properties, I would not believe it one bit. But that’s a little too cosy, so let’s look at something more traditionally political.

I support Party A because in the past they have served my interests and I feel that they will continue to. Tomorrow, if I learn that what Party A has been doing for me was not, in fact, beneficial, my support would waver. But will I completely stop supporting Party A? Maybe not. Because of the trust I have in them, based on my positive experiences, I might chose to ignore the facts presented. It’s a complicated process and I have probably been horribly manipulated, but regardless, I will not change my mind over Party A.

Carelessness is a pretty relevant factor here as well. One simply might not care about the new facts presented to them. It can be argued that this carelessness stems from a deeper ignorance to things that this person disagrees with, period, but maybe not. Maybe it just doesn’t matter to them whether they’re doing things generally considered moral or immoral.

(Why does everything end with morality?)

[4181writes]

politics in everyday life

To me, politics indicates power structures and negotiation and discrimination. Not the brightest image, not the worst, but quite raw.

What comes to mind when one mentions politics, usually, would be the government or policy-making of some kind. But assuming politics encompasses all that includes resources, people, and negotiation, there is nothing that remains untouched by politics.

Every inconsequential thing can be politicised. choosing what to eat for dinner, for example. My mother might suggest something, my sister might suggest something else, and we have negotiation. It involves people, directly my mother and my sister, and indirectly the rest of the family, or whoever will be consuming the dinner. It involves resources, obviously, as the food to be prepared, the cost of the food, the cost of preparing the food — electricity and gas bills, for example.

Another instance, less obvious. Rationalising your decision to, for example, start collecting chocolate wrappers. This is speaking from experience. It involves resources: the chocolate being consumed and the wrapper of that chocolate, the money spent on buying the chocolate. It involves negotiation: is this wrapper worthy of being collected? Is this a fruitful hobby? Will this go anywhere, how do I decide what to pick and what not to pick, what do I do when my collection grows? And lastly, it involves people: myself, as the collector and the consumer, and my family, as the consumers of the chocolate.

Quite evidently, politics wants to make its presence known everywhere. And quite evidently, it is present everywhere.

[4181writes]

Are Gender Roles Inherently Disrespectful?

disclaimer: this is my opinion, and all examples cited are ones seen in the society I belong to.

gender, as defined by the Oxford dictionary: the fact of being male or female, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology

role, as defined by the Oxford dictionary: the function or position that somebody has or is expected to have in an organization, in society or in a relationship

The term ‘gender roles’ has no rigid definition. From the above statements, we can derive a definition of addition: gender roles are the function an individual of an identity of either male or female has in accordance to societal expectations.

Dare I say — in a rather roundabout way, an attempting political-correctness way — gender roles are essentially stereotypes of the binary gender model.

It is worth noting how the notion of gender itself can be considered a societal construct. Its non-linkages with biology give it no footing in what I refer to, broadly, as the ‘natural world.’ This ‘natural world’ of mine is what we get when we strip ourselves of all social conduct, of all constructs, raze humanity to its bare bones. What is left is what is tangible. Is gender tangible? No. Gender is a distinction created by humans to classify living organisms, which has bled into our classification of abiotic and inanimate objects as well. Case in point: gendered articles. Possibly our love for classification, possibly some bias our ancestors had when languages first developed, the reason for having gendered grammar will not make sense to me. Regardless, it is just an example to show how ingrained gender is in our lives.

Gender roles emerge when we assign actions or mindsets onto a particular gender. These roles tend to limit themselves to the binary gender model of just cis-male and cis-female. Certain expectations fall upon these females, certain upon these males. Women are expected to be homemakers, men are expected to be breadwinners. Women must abide by their husbands’ wishes, women must not laugh a certain way, must not dress a certain way, must not work. If they do, they cannot earn more than their husband earns. Patriarchy may spare males from some of the extremities, but the harm manifests when they’re expected to provide for their parents, for their children and their wives, as well as hold the responsibility as the head of the household. Gender roles do not spare anyone.

These expectations are heavily restrictive and ignorant, making them disrespectful to enforce as they curb one’s ability to chose for themselves. As we’re moving towards more individualistic outlooks, these views are often assumed as outdated. But disregarding that, is the act of enforcing these expectations not disrespectful in itself? Is the very fact that we even have gender roles not disrespectful? Is not so inconsequential, so trivial, to even base entire norms and roles solely on an intangible construct?

[4181writes]

Ambiguous?

Is ambiguity a shortcoming of language that must be eliminated, or can it also be seen as making a positive contribution to knowledge and knowing?

Ambiguity, defined: the state of being difficult to understand or explain because of involving many different aspects. This definition, in itself, contains very little room for ambiguity. Literary, ambiguity is also a figurative device, but that’s a little too technical.

So, while looking at ambiguity, I consider a few key actions: learning, knowing, and guessing.

Learning

Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge. Learning, in turn, can be achieved by other processes; being taught, experience, or simply... osmosis. Learning is omnipotent. You learn throughout your life. Learning extends beyond the day-in-day-out of academia or the fall-and-get-back-up of the sports field. But how does this have any ties with ambiguity?

It doesn’t, at least, not directly. But as long as ambiguity needs knowledge, and knowledge needs learning, the two will be related.

Knowing

Knowing is the act of possessing information. And knowing comes from learning, which comes from a multitude of processes. The fact of knowing confounds ambiguity.

In a conversation, for example, knowing context simply gives you an upper-hand on ambiguity. while ambiguity tries to encourage the pragmatic over the semantic, knowledge helps you understand better.

But we shouldn’t limit knowledge to a means over overcoming ambiguity, if there is a need at all.

Guessing

We’ve seen how to look ambiguity in the face and overpower it, but that’s the hard-earned, heavy-duty method. In the lack of knowledge, due to a lack of learning, you can look ambiguity in the face and just guess. Context clues are helpful. Observations are helpful. Judging tone and intent is also helpful. Of course, you would need some semblance of knowledge for this, but not the whole picture.

Guessing comes from the gut. And while your gut is rather unreliable, sometimes it’s the only means you have.

Now, consider: is ambiguity something we must eliminate? It causes misunderstandings and unnecessarily complicates. Wouldn’t it be much easier if we just knew everything we needed to at any given point in time? (Fun fact, some languages encourage the lack of ambiguity right down to their grammar, making specific affixes for evidentiality — one such example is Tariana, an endangered South American language.)

Personally, ambiguity adds to language. Ambiguity makes plots exciting and situations tense, which help build knowledge through experience. If we lived in a world with no ambiguity, the unknown would stump us. But it is the power of acknowledging and employing ambiguity that makes us curious and leads to a pursuit of knowledge. Whether it be inconsequential — nosy parents asking after your friends — or quite consequential — the distance from the Earth to the moon — lack of knowledge has pushed us to want to acquire more. And that is precisely the role of ambiguity.

[4181writes]

Fact, Opinion, and Exclusion

Observing and noting ways in which language is used in the personal and public domain to transmit facts and opinions.

Look, I really don’t want to write about this because it feels too much like a personal attack. But if you’re no good at dissecting your own actions how are you going to live up to the myth of a functional adult? (Which I’m not. Just to clarify)

Within language, on a technical level, there can be grammatical aspects that are suitable for a certain context. In my native language we have different versions of the word ‘you,’ between which one uses based on the person they’re addressing. Following this, verb conjugations also change. An older person, a person of, say, a higher ranking at work, teachers, to address them one must use आप/aap, the formal ‘you.’ Someone close to an individual, a family member, a friend, even anyone of the same age or younger, to address them one can use तुम/tum, the casual ‘you.’ In languages that I do not speak but am somewhat familiar with, such concepts are more prevalent.

So far we’ve only really looked at the mechanics of the language — the grammar. Language, as we know, also encompasses elements like tone and body language, both of which are potent in communication.

In my head, the voice I assume is the one I feel most comfortable with. The voice that reads narrations to me and is reading these very words as I type them is my own. To another person, it might be someone else’s. There must be people with no voice in their heads at all, too. This voice of mine doesn’t tend to filter itself and rarely regrets what it says. Such is my relationship with myself. I suppose it differs from person to person.

In a comfortable setting; with my family, with my friends, sometimes even the classroom, this voice does speak. With no apparent filters and extremely casual. I’ve been told I complicate my words when I speak, (I’m not going to be ashamed of my vocabulary, kindly keep that to yourself.) but it’s nothing to blame me for when I’m just using the terms I feel most useful in describing a situation.

In a more formal setting; the head of school’s office, at my parents’ workplaces, in conversation with a more respectable person, this voice changes. It becomes more conscious, words deliberately come out more impressive than they really are. It’s a seek for validation as per the Teenage Code of Conduct and a testimony to Gifted-Child Pride I still, shamefully, carry.

Tone makes a difference. Speaking informally, by mechanics or voice modulation, is enough to damage an ego. And the damage of an ego... well, we all know how that story ends.

Anyway.

How many times have you been told to stand up straight and stop slouching? Ah, wrong question. How many times a day have you been told to stand up straight and stop slouching? It’s no great mystery why. Body language tends to tell you all you need to know about a person. But this is also tied intricately to context. No one’s judging you if you sit with incorrect posture at the foot of your friend’s bed. But people might judge you if you sprawl atop a desk at school while class is going on. Simple, right? That’s all there is to it.

Really, all it is is how we think we will be seen by others that makes us modify our language. We never really know what other people are thinking, so we might base that off what we think of ourselves. But that’s very complex and self-image issues are not quite easy to encompass. Body language is, though. And tone is. And so is grammar.

Now when it comes to what you say — your facts and opinions, they are dependant on the context along with your beliefs of yourself, and are modified accordingly. Things I present as facts to my family are what I might present as opinions to my peers. So-and-so is perpetually pissed off becomes So-and-so seems to have an anger management issue. So-and-so teacher hates me becomes I’ve done something that has left a bad impression on so-and-so teacher. In comfortable, trustworthy settings, we let our words run loose. In settings with consequences, we keep a watch on them.

Be mindful of your words. Who knows, they might damage an ego.

[4181writes]

Misogyny in Bollywood and the Ideal World of Phineas and Ferb

Looking at means of entertainment (films, songs, cartoons and advertisement) as reinforcers of commonly held social beliefs and practices.

Oh, big question. I’m going to pick up some examples and discuss them, this is highly subjective.

Bollywood

'Bollywood’ is a blanket term used to describe the Hindi-language film industry. It’s famous, if I do say so myself. It holds immense influence, and these actors are highly looked up to. In a lot of scenes in movies, a disclaimer is brought forth: ‘The actors in this film do not support or promote smoking. Smoking is injurious to health, smoking kills.’ (approximately). But that, and alcohol, is just about where the disclaimers stop. What you don’t see disclaimers for are things like domestic violence — things that are immensely relevant. Anyway, you’d assume, like any other influential entity, Bollywood doesn’t always use its power for good. And you’d be right! (This isn’t necessarily a down-right evil thing, no one can be expected to be good all of the time). One thing that tends to ‘define’ Bollywood is the numerous dance numbers in the movies. But things that are also extremely potent in most of these are a. the sexualisation of the human body, and b. the objectification of women.

The Indian society, to my experience, is a patriarchal one. People are misogynistic anyway, we don’t need Bollywood enforcing it, but here we are!

I don’t wish to dive too deeply into this, I’m not in the mood, it would be long work, and I’m frankly not too excited to translate derogatory lyrics. All we need to know is that they’re there, and they’re influencing our society whether we like it or not.

Phineas and Ferb

Okay, this was a cartoon I loved watching when I was... seven? Eight? That age. It made me want a life that I couldn’t have, and no, not in the way of making all these fun inventions, but in the way of the lifestyle. It’s quintessentially American (again, to my knowledge) — the children are allowed to do whatever they please, you don’t have to arrange for your friends to come over, you can just... do things without involving your parents. No parental permission required. I think that really stuck me. I didn’t know words like cultural differences. All I knew was that Isabelle could show up at Phineas and Ferb’s house unannounced, go ‘What’cha doin’?’ and they’d just start building things. For one, I wanted a backyard, and two, I wanted those kinds of friends.

But once you learn more and try and think about why things are so different, you realise it’s just not the way where you live works, that culture is not yours, that lifestyle is one you’ll probably never have. I don’t think I was the only one experiencing this. These cartoons, I think, became a sort-of indoctrination. That’s why so many of my peers look up to West, that’s why they’re so desperate to relate to American television and lifestyle. It made you want something you knew you couldn’t have. I also wonder if this is why so many of them are hellbent on taking the SATs. We were children — did we know any better? Do we now know any better? I don’t know. But I don’t blame them. It is an attractive way of living.

This influenced the way we wanted to act. The exposure and portrayal of that world shaped how we behaved in ours, maybe minutely, maybe not, but it definitely did. The socio-economic background I belong to, the class of people I go to school with, we all had the similar experiences. We all began behaving the way we thought would resemble the one we so desperately wanted to relate to. I think this, even though only affecting a tiny, tiny minority, did enforce and reinforce some beliefs we hold today. (But dude, come on, you still want to go to America, even after all this?)

But hey! It’s not all that dreary. One can get carried away in a fit of teenage angst and identity dysphoria. On the brighter side, advertisements give us hope. Many of these evil capitalistic companies make ads that aim to spread a social message. It’s a marketing tactic, but an effective one. I don’t know if these ads have any impact, but those that cross the line of religious differences and encourage an equal distribution of roles in a marriage, those warm my heart. Those are things that make you believe in humanity, and yeah, it’s fake, but it’s also beautiful.

The way we see and interpret things impacts how we see and interpret all schemas we have related to them. It’s like this: the only reason you’ve been told ‘keep a positive mindset’ again and again is because it’s effective. It works. Keep reinforcing how beautiful and bright and hopeful your future is, you’ll believe it. Similarly, keep being fed a message, you’ll believe it. Entertainment is the biggest contender in this. Consume responsibly.

[4181writes]

Confirmation Bias and Other Things

Understanding why we interpret language and communication based on previously held beliefs and ideas.

Interesting thing to look at today, as I was debating with myself over the all men/not all men issue. It’s lost its.... trendiness, I’ve seen, but the timelessness of gender-based discrimination remains un-eroded. (Debatable, I know.)

Today’s topic has an easy but endless answer: comfort zones. When I hear something from a friend of mine versus when I hear something from a classmate I’ve despised since the very beginning of time — it is quite obvious in whose words I’d put more importance.

(Is it? Is it really?)

Let’s observe some aspects of how previously held beliefs and ideas influence how we interpret language and communication.

The Communicator

As in the example I took, the distinguishing factor was the relationship I had with the people who were telling me things. One is more likely to listen to a relative who respects your boundaries than one who does not, right? We tend to believe those who we trust above strangers, and we put more respect in people we feel intimately about — people of our own culture, people of our own race, people of our own social background — rather than people, who, again, might be strangers to us.

But within this vastness of the communicator, disregarding the relationship we might have with them, another simple concept comes into play: prejudice. And there’s two types of prejudice that I’d like to explore:

If my grandparents saw war-time horrors committed by people of a certain identity, they grow to be wary of those people. There is little someone can do to sway their opinion and I’d argue that even trying to do so might invalidate what they’ve seen or been through. While I believe this doesn’t excuse blatant hate and degradation towards that identity, I have not experienced what they have and I hopefully never will, so my opinion on this may not be valid.

But baseless prejudice does, unfortunately, exist. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual identity, gender identity — countless charges. And the only justification for these, as it tends to boil down to, are inherited prejudices and harmful stereotypes. If I am discriminatory towards Community A because of a trait they cannot change, my prejudice falls under this category.

So, apart from any personal relationships with the communicator, their identity comes into play, too. If we hold certain beliefs about them, it influences the way we interpret their message.

The Context

Meanings change depending on the context. Different people require different levels of formality, different settings call for different uses of language, the like. The things about context is that it’s subjective and sometimes difficult to read. A child, when throwing a tantrum, might figure out that if it’s done in public, they’re more likely to get whatever they’ve got their mind fixated on. Obviously, context plays into this situation; at home, the child knows they will be ignored, but in public, with people to see, their parents might be more embarrassed and thus more willing.

If someone is looking to impress a figure of authority and believes the only way to do so is agree with them, they will change their behaviour accordingly. If someone believes the way to good grades is to become a teacher’s pet, they will behave accordingly. So where does our confirmation bias play into this? Where do our ‘previously held beliefs and ideas’ contribute? Well, in the way we choose to behave.

Our notions about a social setting and the etiquette expected of us in said social setting encompass our ‘previously held beliefs and ideas.’ The way we modify how we behave to show respect or gain good graces all stem from what we consider attitudes that will equip us to achieve what we aim to.

The Language

I saved this for last because I felt it was rather obvious. I believe it is the largest defining factor when considering the statement at hand: what the message is.

Within this, I do include how you communicate. (Or, as my father loves to say: “It doesn’t matter what you say, it matters how you say it.”) After all, language isn’t confined to words — it covers body language, tone, eye contact. They all convey a part of the message, they all contribute to the language you employ. If I am wary of people who hold eye contact for a long stretch, I will automatically assume they are being untrue. If I find people who like to crowd in my personal space overbearing, I will automatically try to find an out in the situation.

Language is the simplest and most relevant aspect to consider when it comes to the topic we’re considering today. If I am free of discriminatory biases, if I am uncaring of any social contexts, language will still play a role in how I look at a message. If the communicator is behind a screen, if all I have is an anonymous note in a comfortable context, I will judge by tone and choice of words and draw my own, as hard as I might refute, biased conclusion.

If a serial killer has been empirically convicted, would one believe them when they claim they haven’t committed their crime? If an administrative figure known to be hot-headed makes an offhand comment, would someone equally hot-headed not take it as a challenge? If a person I know has a reputation of being misogynistic, would I not take their comments in a misogynistic light? Is it right to make these assumptions?

Well, no. But it is human. And that’s where we tie it back to my original point: comfort zones. I believe that we find solace in the fact that we’re right, and to constantly reinforce that, we take in account the communicator, the context, and the content and let them influence our interpretations of messages. I don’t believe it’s something to be deeply disciplined — except, of course, in a discriminatory light — because more often than not, our gut instinct is right.

But when we reduce it, we’re left with the question of whether anything we ever interpret or understand is untainted of bias. Humanly (the adverb I use when I don’t know where on my black, white, and minimally grey morality an action lies), no.

[4181writes]

On Parental Figures, Authority, and Censorship

Understanding what makes words, ideas and concepts taboo in specific social contexts.

Have you ever been berated for asking a question? You probably have. It happens. People expect you to know boundaries without being told and etiquette without being informed. Because that’s just how it is, beta.

Honestly, there isn’t much when it comes to why a word, idea, or concept is taboo. It’s disrespectful. Disrespectful to your audience; disrespectful to someone’s beliefs, disrespectful to someone’s struggles, disrespectful to someone’s identity. However, the severity of your message can vary and it isn’t always going to be a coming-to-blows-life-threatening situation. Sometimes you speak without thinking your thoughts through, sometimes you make assumptions before asking, sometimes you stereotype because that’s what you’ve been taught.

Take different social contexts. It was some function in my junior school years and we were out for a family dinner. I was handed an envelope by one of my relatives, and I, being the oh-so-quirky tween I was, immediately opened it. I saw no wrong in my actions, and, till this day, I still think what I did was to amuse the people around me. What I got instead was a strongly-worded request to not do that again. This stuck with me, because I never understood what it was that was so disrespectful in opening an envelope of money. But, you know, as you listen to the adults around you, you learn a few things.

Let’s take the ‘never ask a man how much he earns and a woman her age’ example. Put aside the glaring disrespect of identity in that statement, and see what two aspects of this are taboo. Money should not be addressed and age should not be addressed. From what I understand, it’s what Facebook-generation memes target; a woman’s insecurity regarding her age and a man’s insecurity regarding his income. It is disrespectful to bring up someone’s insecurities, right? So, being the rational child I was, I asked my mother how much she earned and my father his age. It wasn’t as witty as I thought.

Still, these examples were pretty harmless. Look at a place with authority, and see how the definition of disrespectful changes from ‘offending an individual’ to ‘offending an authority’ Say something anti-establishment at your place of work, insult your classmate in school, actively demonstrate against your government: whether and how you’re penalised depends on your authority.

*insert edgy teen discourse against the government*

Regardless. When faced with authority, what authority finds disrespectful is disrespectful, and thus, what authority deems taboo is taboo.

On a larger scale, there’s censorship to look at. Topics in media that are taboo will be edited out of a movie and redacted, deemed unfit for public consumption. A board of censors decides this. So, well, what we see in popular media has been deemed inoffensive and respectful enough by, essentially, a group of people that get to decide of an entire nation. But watching a highly-censored TV adaptation of your favourite novel is also disrespectful to the original content and creator, and thus we get caught in a loop of wrong and right.

But what is wrong for me may not be wrong for you, and what is disrespectful to me may not be disrespectful to you. With friends, in jest, your insecurities are made light of. Is this disrespectful? Yes. But will you take this to court? No. Does it really hurt your feelings? Depends on you.

That’s what it all really boils down to in the end: what is disrespectful for you, is it always totally and fully disrespectful, does its meaning change depending on your audience, your authority?

At the end of the day, disrespect and taboo are subjective, just like the eternal question of wrong and right.

[4181writes]

A Dialogue on Curses, Misogyny, and the Oh-so-Corrupted World We Live In

Observing and noting the key subjects around which swears are modelled.

This was due last week — or the equivalent of last week in this conundrum of space-time we’re suffering through. Oh, the woes of an apocalyptic modern-day pandemic, brought to you from my place of privilege. The consequence of said privilege is also the reason this blog has been created, and I have no clue where I intended to go with that.

Regardless. Today we’re going to discuss swear words; a timeless topic and a timeless medium of communication. It can be assumed that swear words have been around for as long as language has been around, even in a non-verbal form, and they are not exclusive to humans.

But what is it that makes these swear words so bad? To put it across in the shortest way possible: what they mean. Obvious, right? Well, it’s not that direct.

Swear words are associated with a multitude of topics that can change depending on where you are. What is considered offensive in one community may not be considered so in another, and this takes root in what said communities consider as taboo topics, or immoral, or shameful. Offensive language is modelled around these beliefs, and — unsurprisingly — we’ve settled on a few topics that are rather globally offensive.

Women

*enter the raging feminist, you think, incapable of viewing discussions without considering them as personal attacks*

There is no lack of curses directed at femininity. Be it genitals, behaviours, or simply existence, it is offensive to be considered female. In the two languages I’m fluent in, misogynistic curses are fairly common. This is a reflection of a misogynistic and patriarchal society, yes, but also a reflection of the continued and, at times, unconscious reinforcement of gender roles, social standings, and stereotypes.

Sex

The most commonly used curse I’ve heard implies sex, but is rarely used in the context of sexual activity. It is also regarded as the worst curse by people I know — even though said people do not consider the implications of the curse as anything extremely taboo, shameful, or immoral. If curses are indeed offensive due to their associations, what happens when the association isn’t considered offence-worthy?

I’d say context, but even that seems like a weak argument to me. In such cases, the curses used are meant to emphasise, are auxiliary rather than independent. Adding a curse to a statement, in such cases, increases the intensity of the statement, packs an additional punch, and conveys a more aggressive approach.

Marginalised Communities

Admittedly, this is less straight-forward than our previous examples. Curses associated with marginalised communities are frequently used to oppress, mock, insult, degrade a people by a people that considers itself superior. Historically, these assumptions of superiority have been in regards to, but not limited to: race, caste, and ethnicity. Now, I don’t really have an explanation for this presumed precedence, nor do I believe a rational argument for this even exists, so I will not comment upon it further.

Swearing is known to be a bad habit by many, but, really, is it? Is it bad to swear? Overall, no. Under certain circumstances, yes. Swears are a way of letting frustration out, and helpfully, they’re also a way of motivating people. Swears can make people bond, they can make people laugh, and can express an informal setting. However, swears that are considered politically incorrect, which aim to insult a people and still have cultural significance, are interpreted to show immaturity, ignorance, and even enforcement of oppression. Where you are and who you’re addressing should be considered, too; swearing can show disrespect and poor character.

Essentially, think before you speak. Be mindful of your words. But not too mindful, because that’s also a problem.