But doubtful if the hue has swayed preferences, as it seems it only verified what and who were already there in the contemporary 'sub-political society'.
From comments and posts well defined from all margins are the intellectuals or analytical, exponents for patronage, and of course from the rosy group came the inane and utterly ridiculous. Injudicious in the sense that they fail to see, compare, and continuously rant out rehashed issues of dictatorship, extrajudicial killings, and corruption as if some unseen hand is coaching them on what to say, or like uninformed parrots that just screech, squawk, and blabbing and on.
It is not respectable to condemn anyone for their political, religious, or preferences. The exercise of a right is the essence of democracy, that right, even the right to remain ludicrous has to be upheld.
Not taking a stand is moronic. True neutrality is siding with the truth, justice, and who is right whoever they are.
It's the reason why boats have two outriggers for balance and stability. The same in a democratic society that one has always to be on the other side of the fence for each other's sanity and better perspectives. By that, therefore, we have seen the analytical versus the moronic, the intellectual versus the dumb, the principled versus the leeches. And of course the whole truth versus the "alternative truth", which is nothing but lies and fables.
Democracy or not, it is free to dream, though some choose to hallucinate. I just cannot understand why and how the intrinsic intellectuals that I know of have failed to be analytical and selective on present-day socio-political issues.
As the new year of politics dawn, tolerance and respect for the preferences of others are to be observed, as those in politics have Party rules to toe, others may simply owe their existence or living on it, while most have a conscience to speak.
Those in the business sector may call the choice "an investment", or payback for previous favors or preferential accommodations as in project contracts, funds, or business opportunities.
Depressing however are those who have to abide and endure miserably the partialities of their superiors in the workplace, or succumb to the influencers that wield "the power of the purse". It is painful even to imagine how it is to have a man's will chained.
Disheartening also are those that live in the limbo of truth and information, as in the case of many that chose to live overseas and remained ignorant of the true state of the country, with their sensitivities curtained by biased media and viral liars.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed, but spreading lies and fallacious conclusions is however taboo in any circumstances, not even as a manifestation of desperation, or trepidation of losing a cause. We owe it all morally to keep everyone properly informed and be shielded from sham.
Denigration may still be more forgivable than veiling the truth.
Being politicized "wrongly" after the 1st Quarter Storm and before EDSA 1, I remember those in the religious sector actively participating per call of the Cardinal. Currently, their educational institutions still display the yellow and pink ribbons, and thank a past dead President, short of canonizing him, that I entertain the idea that their hatred for the Marcoses and the subsequent generations is elicited by pride, subconscious remorse, that EDSA 1 was all a mistake, that it was but a schemed fiasco born from a family feud.
We should be cognizant of the obvious reasons for these assortments of choice. Ideally, the choice should be conscience-driven, that innate manifestation of free will and intellect, and free from lies and deception of others. That drives us to say otherwise from what they say.
I remember a priest in one of his homilies saying that "it is moral for anyone to follow other beliefs, to join another church, provided it is in accordance with his conscience rather than because of marriage, job opportunity, business, and other personal interests".
Who says that we should not be critical of our government? Yes, we all should but in the context of democratic exercise at least for critical cooperation, consistent with logic, and for alternative solutions to issues. Be critical, yes, but those in the government service should not unduly undermine the Chief Executive unless loyalty and decency are beyond your morals that you have no right to remain even for a second more.
Reproach of official prerogatives should never be for the purpose of destabilizing, discrediting, or pushing for a specific person to be in power that they can stage-manage. Be certain too that such censures would not serve as a showcase of the critic's stupidity.
Nobody should expect that all will agree with our views and comments posted on social media platforms. Everyone has the right to an opinion that may be incongruent with ours. They could hate, mock, or curse for all we care. Anyway, we also have the privilege to amusingly ridicule another's incorrigible stupidity.
Never mind if the tirades from those that disagree with you defy or are in agreement with science, similar to "scientifically, BLACK is the absence of all colors while WHITE is the presence of all colors". But sadly, YELLOW and PINK, obviously, or has been proven, as the absence of GREY MATTER. Nevertheless, let us not despise the dim-witted for stupidity enhances wisdom as darkness is to light.
Many critics are like those on online shopping pages where prices and other details are already indicated. But instead of clicking the appropriate button, many would still ask: How much? Where can I order? They still ask the obvious for they are blind to the truth.
Hatred blinds, hatred corrupts the mind that no amount of logical explanation would suffice. Never has hatred triumphed over truth and righteousness.
They however that have done nothing good in the past have no moral right to criticize the present. Neither It's moral to seek the downfall of the very authority that appointed you in Office by unduly siding with its enemies.
With so much destabilization, it's hard to be apolitical. With so many lies that mislead, it's so hard not to speak the truth. With so much stupidity, it's hard not to ridicule, with so much impertinence, it's hard to be humble; and with so much affront, it's hard not to fight back.
If it's itchy it should be scratched. If it's bitchy it should be bashed. The same with public posts on social media or the fake news of the so-called media that prostitutionalized the trade. Fake news isn't NEWS but an indication of a state of mind that's either Neurotic, Emotional, Wackoo, Stupid, or all of it.
If you don't want to be criticized, then do what is right. Better yet, drop-dead, for it is illegal and punishable to "to blacken the memory of one who is dead".
Elections and personal preferences of candidates become divisive only when personalities are wrongly demonized, or elevated as demi-gods that we fall to delusions of the promises of panacea from the imaginary ills of the present system, which fallacies damage or erode social sanity.
More so that we as ethnic groups are generally prone to emotionalism, and perhaps to fanaticism and pessimism that traps us in the ruinous cycle of tolerance. Relentlessly let us always seek truth and justice, but with prudence to ferret out lies and commit no injustice.
Above all, the common good, the future of the country, and its image in the international community should not be compromised by voting out of patronage, hatred, parochialism, intimidation, or "utang na loob" (moral indebtedness). We owe it to the next generations. We owe it to the Filipino people.
No comments:
Post a Comment