Rant #1: Ramu Doesn't Think Before He Speaks, Don't Be Ramu

By: Sanjay Adhikari, 2016-05-24 07:00:00.0Category:  Issues & Concerns
News Image

I number this article instead of naming it because I hope that the editor does not fire me after this. Micro-gestures, I totally made it up, go far longer than some people might conceive. Keep working on it, it’s good for the brain. Without wasting more of my space, and your time, let us get to the point. I want to keep things a bit general here in order to get you acquainted with the style and content that will follow, hopefully, later in the series. Nonetheless, I will give one example to illustrate the idea.

I do expect some sincerity and honesty from the readers. Why, I will explain in a moment. The demographic that this article is aimed at, I assume, largely consists of the younger members of our society. Pardon me if you fall outside of the category. You might as well find a voice, that is not yours, telling the young ones to do what you always wanted them to do in the first place. I, personally, have chosen a career-path of educating them. My expertise lies in the field of science but I also happen to dabble, even a little bit, in the areas outside of my discipline. It is not a mere coincidence that the techniques of scientific method transcend science. Almost any claim about us could be put to scrutiny and if, and only if they pass the scientific rigor that I am convinced of their legitimacy. Skepticism comes with my line of work. And I am an ardent believer of the notion that a healthy skepticism is needed in order to advance our legitimate knowledge. It shouldn’t surprise anyone when I say that academic honesty and integrity is paramount. Everything that I have said, or will say amounts to nothing without it. No form of scrutiny or judgement will save you if you are dishonest in your evaluation. I expect that my readers are able to evaluate themselves and their methods of forming an opinion in the light of the foregoing points.  

Lately I have come across a breed of rabid attention seekers who are deluded at their best and dishonest at their worst. More often than not, they are usually the loudest. I highly recommend an essay by George Sanders. It is called, Brain Dead Megaphone. The article deals precisely with the kind of people that I am talking about, albeit the Attention Seekers, that have been replaced by the perverted media houses. The upshot remains the same though. Imagine a guy, in a roomful of people, pouring out his bile in a megaphone. All that the people hear is that asshole piping his opinions whether they want to hear him or not. Later people start finding his rhetoric plausible and sensible. Within a short span of time his ludicrous ideas find home in their opinions. Now, if I tell you that the guy is a metaphor for these attention seekers you might go huh! At this point you must take a step back and listen to what I have to say. Their loudness and crassness with a veneer of seemingly legitimate information is both appealing and deceptive at the same time. How do I protect myself against the guy with the megaphone, you might ask. Fact checking! I would say. Now it is easier said than done. Often these maniacs roam around in packs. You will be fed the same shit from multiple sources and before you know it, there’s a massive shit-storm squarely approaching you. I don’t blame you if you fall right into the trap. They have laid a siege on our collective intellect and we must find a way out before the fortifications give way.   

I have saved the techniques of research, fact checking, finding holes in a narrative, scope of judgement and forming an opinion for the succeeding article. I will end this piece with an example. Tanmay Bhatt, form All India Backchod (AIB), recently came out with a video which was shared by quite a few people. I do like the guy and I say he is very funny. But I believe he should stick to comedy. In case he feels strongly about something and wants to speak about it he should first educate himself. Misinterpretation and misrepresentation are journalistic sins. He should, at least, regard the responsibility on his shoulders when he dishes out a video for public consumption. He must understand that a lot of people will believe him just because. The video per se is about feminism. What grinds my gears every time I watch the video is how callously he has conflated the first world problems with ours. In his condescending tone he tells us to regard a problem just because someone says he/she has a problem. And the first world problems like wage gap that he flings at us as examples have been proven to be baseless economic lies in the places where the narrative comes from. There are reams and reams of data on it. The problems disappear as soon as you start comparing apples to apples. Obama and Hillary so fervently talk about women getting paid seventy-seven cents to a dollar of a man for the same job. But you only need to scratch the surface to find out that the women on their own respective panels are getting paid less on an average. On being questioned about it they have always resorted back to the same arguments people have been making for years, that women choose to work lesser hours than men. Their choices result in lesser pay rather than a systemic oppression by the patriarchy. Duh! Tanmay, so easily conflates the problems of Indian women, like education, reproductive health etc. with this first world load of crap. He even mocks the idea of these urgent problems by referring to them as ‘real’ problems, stressing on the sarcasm of ‘real’. It’s a slap on the face of all the women who are actually oppressed in India. Why does he have to copy the worst possible things from the west? Roast was a good copy and stick to things like that I would tell him.

He goes on to define feminism for the layman. I have to say that I am practically tearing my hair at this point in the video because of the sheer stupidity and condescension on display. Let us be clear ourselves first, there is no concurrence on the definition of feminism. Almost any feminist would have her/his own definition and would invariably distance herself/himself from the dictionary definition of feminism. She/he would include it in her/his definition but the additions and subtractions make all the difference. I am a big fan of the first wave and second wave feminism and I believe there should be one such wave in India, whatever you may want to call it. But I have my reservations against the man hating death cult, that is feminism today in the first world. You have to understand that it is a political movement which is on a decline when its predecessors have achieved whatever they had set out to achieve in the developed world. That is the primary reason you do not find many subscribers to this idiotic ideology. We have come farther than that.

According to Tanmay, and I am paraphrasing, not misrepresenting, him in any way, ‘you are a feminist if you stand for equality.’ Well! Here’s a thing. It is his definition and he must understand that things are not always what you want them to be. I stand for equality and I am categorically not a feminist. It is almost slanderous to identify me with such despicable group as of modern-day feminists. As I have said before, feminism is a political movement with a very narrow set of man hating ideas in their manifesto. They don’t want fathers to have equal custody of their children, and they don’t want people discussing serious men’s issues like high suicide rates or college dropout rates either. In the west, from where most our social justice warriors get their opinions from, these feminists want you to believe in the existence of a rape culture, something that is even refuted by Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), the primary social body dealing with such crimes. You would also want to look at Warren Farrell protests in Toronto, to see the legitimacy of my preceding claims. These couch fainting feminists are triggered by anything and everything: clapping seems to trigger them. They want safe spaces where they are shown videos of frolicking puppies, to keep them safe from any dissenting idea. They are first to silence any rational voice within their clique. Christina Hoff Sommers and Julie Bindel: great voices for women’s rights, have fallen out of their good books. Why, because they do not hate men. I do not want anything to do with this pack of bigoted animals that call themselves feminists today. And I want people like Tanmay to understand this simple fact. I ask my readers: would you want to be identified with such hate mongers?

To my readers, I would say this also: do not just believe in what I have said, instead go and find out things on your own. Be honest and tread very slowly before you come out and say that you have an opinion on something. Good luck!

 

Hocalwire Assignments

    Similar News