There have been many protests and campaigns in recent years pertaining to issues like homosexuality, gender equality, evolution and religion. While it is a shift in focus global warming and food shortage, it also represents our change in our standard of living. How? As the internet embeds itself deeper and deeper into our lives, we start to have more information from everywhere. We realise our world has more issues than we are aware of.
The main difference between past hot campaigns and current ones are that homosexuality and gender equality have many greys. It is very reliant on the moral compass inside each and everyone of us. Very much like one's favourite food, durian for example, there are extremes and neutrals. What's ok to some us are balked by others.
Here's a campaign, Thinking Before We Speak:
https://sfglobe.com/?id=528&src=home_articlexpromo
The campaign is about sending the wrong message by using some of the common phrases we use today. It is really interesting and in all honesty some of the phrases do not literally mean what they mean when we use them, but they do subconsciously become what we believe. When I was in the army, there is a phrase we all heard of before "Don't be a gu niang (meaning lady)!". Unfortunately it is unerringly a use of the stereotype where girls are physically weaker than guys.
While I think the campaign is a good start to correct our stereotype and our use of language, it does not address the root of the problem. Would you call someone who is really ugly, ugly in the face? You might think 'no' would be the natural answer, but the truth is there will bound to have people who stand by saying 'yes'! I mean I would not say yes not because I believe in karma but it would be hurtful and yet it would be hurtful all the same by telling a white lie. That someone who said yes will tell say it's all for the person's own good, better hear the truth than a fabricated lie.
And I am especially guilty of this. I am a #You Don't Say even before the campaign materialised. It torments me because I never get to express myself and get to the root of an issue, instead skirt around and try to filter the negative implications the raw message would bring.
Which would we prefer?
However, when it is put across in this manner, we are in fact doing the exact opposite of solving a problem, we would be running away. Instead of understanding each other, we resort to stop talking about it. Opinions need to be heard, however uncouth. It is up to us to understand what is for the good of us. Are we going to point out that the debates have cause bigger rifts between mankind and that these differences between humans are not as dire as the possibility of losing our homes?
Is this what I want?
Is this what we want?
Is this what we want?