All I did was simply writing a short email, basically on freedom of speech. It seems people have been mentioning my name left right and centre. (dazed) Glad it all appeared to be from the linguistic perspective though. I guess it means a reputation to hold =p, and I hope it would never be like the case of a smart woman who is praised for her beauty instead of her brains, when she has both.
We might not agree on everything, but we do have similar points where we meet. I strongly advocate freedom of speech. While I recognize the manners and thin lines people must not step on, I do earnestly question the very fact that there are those lines, where they are, and drawn by whom. In other words, "Why must there be distress in the first place?"
I am not questioning provocative issues raised by people or the ethics of doing so. There's already much heated 'discussion' (I'm starting to loathe this word when it's given a restrictive connotation! Let's just call it 'attempt to reach mass agreement', that's more like it.) going on about it, and people really should know better to make present a point in an intellectual and analytical manner instead of dumping statements and letting it brew.
What I'm pointing at are people who, refusing to discuss things, are akin to ostriches burying their heads in the sand to hide from their enemies. (Am I referring to the right bird? Anyway, you get it. Haha.) And honestly, what I see is, people who are trying to be UN Peacemakers i.e. telling others not to hurt each other are the ones who are imposing their beliefs on others. The belief that people should not discuss this issue and that issue, et cetera. At least those who are arguing ARE presenting ideas and listening to others' arguments, but the peacemakers are telling people to STOP.
When I look at the intelligently-argued issues, presentations of ideas in eloquent and graceful manners, present in the mailing list, I think we're underestimating our people's ability to deal with these issues. And I do not think it right to speak on behalf of the 'silent majority' either. For Goodness' sake, if you want to be heard, if you want to exercise your rights, SPEAK UP! If you think that the discussion is one-sided, with one view predominating over the other, GO AND HAVE YOUR SAY! No point blaming others who are simply exercising their rights and taking refuge in the designations of a 'silent majority' role, presenting one's selves as victims of an unfair system.
Reminds me of those dunces who who say this party and that party is crap but don't want to vote without any mitigating circumstances.
Last point but not least. This point is general, not exactly directed to the freedom-of-speech-in-mailing-list issue. I wonder where to draw the line between succumbing to the current mindset and mentality of the people, or to reform it, not without a certain amount of - shall I say - intellectual aggression? Or since it is too thin a line, do we have to stay as far away from it as possible and remain on the safest side? Safe for our own selves, but not for the benefit of the majority.
Will post this on my blog. A good brain-exercise, writing this all out during a class-free afternoon. =)
- a comment posted in a friend's blog-