I was going through my daily motions of reading the articles on rediff, flinching at every next mention of 'Abhivarya', posting some stinging comments on the 1032nd report analyzing the utterly pointless and quiet disposable event of Shilpa Shetty derogated on Big Brother (Seriously, how can people be so jobless as to have the time to read those junk articles. Now I am sure some of you would say, "But Ankit you also read that article, LOL!!!", and I would say, "So What" and look shamelesly in the other direction)... You know, minding my own business as usual when I came across this article which mentioned this word bullshit and wrote it like bullsh*t and immediately, in the capacity of a self-appointed ass-kicker of hypocrisy, my bullshit detector started ringing like crazy.
I just don't get it. I can almost picture the man who wrote the article. When the moment came to vent his basic anger at whatever he was dissecting, he must have thought:
"hmmm, what should I write, what should I write... Oh yes... bullshit... but that won't be acceptable to the society... hmmm... hmmm... hmmm... how about bullsh*t !!!... Ingenious, Brilliant, Innovative... Man, I rule so much"
and he would have smirked a little, just like Edison would have smirked upon getting his 1022nd patent. However, in all the ecstacy of his stumbling upon this entirely genius plan he forgot one thing: His readers are not unicelled blue green algae and most of them possess enough gray matter to come up with the word bullshit when presented with the word bullsh*t. I assume that he expected one of the two scenarios, either of which will render his stance pretty much void:
1. I hope that people will figure out that what I am trying to say is the word 'bullshit'.
Argument: First of all, thanks for showing so much belief in the mental capacities of fellow humans but my point is that if most of the people ARE able to decode your elaborately encrypted code, doesn't it defeat your whole purpose ? If most of the people can add 2+2 then I contest that bullsh*t is as offensive as bullshit to all those for whom it is offensive. And seriously, we are talking about humans here. Not jellyfishes, not logs of wood, not Ekta Kapoors. Lets give some respect to their intelligence.
2. I hope that people won't be able to figure out what I truly meant by writing bullsh*t.
Argument: Do I even need to present an argument ? Nevertheless, whats the point of using a word in an article when you are wishing that no one will be able to get its import ? And I am sure that you are not doing any justice to your writing skills if you are writing for those who won't be able to make out bullshit from bullsh*t.
Nevertheless, the point which emerges from all this rambling is that if you do not want to offend people (which should depend entirely upon your set of ethics and your own social considerations) by writing some offensive word, don't write it at all. Don't go through the pains of encrypting it in a laughably moronic code only to end up getting decoded left, right and center by most of the humans and even some trained dogs and cats. I could delve into the psychological underpinnings of such an impulse, but I would rather save my and everyone else's time by terming it asyet another shining example social hypocrisy.
I just don't get it. I can almost picture the man who wrote the article. When the moment came to vent his basic anger at whatever he was dissecting, he must have thought:
"hmmm, what should I write, what should I write... Oh yes... bullshit... but that won't be acceptable to the society... hmmm... hmmm... hmmm... how about bullsh*t !!!... Ingenious, Brilliant, Innovative... Man, I rule so much"
and he would have smirked a little, just like Edison would have smirked upon getting his 1022nd patent. However, in all the ecstacy of his stumbling upon this entirely genius plan he forgot one thing: His readers are not unicelled blue green algae and most of them possess enough gray matter to come up with the word bullshit when presented with the word bullsh*t. I assume that he expected one of the two scenarios, either of which will render his stance pretty much void:
1. I hope that people will figure out that what I am trying to say is the word 'bullshit'.
Argument: First of all, thanks for showing so much belief in the mental capacities of fellow humans but my point is that if most of the people ARE able to decode your elaborately encrypted code, doesn't it defeat your whole purpose ? If most of the people can add 2+2 then I contest that bullsh*t is as offensive as bullshit to all those for whom it is offensive. And seriously, we are talking about humans here. Not jellyfishes, not logs of wood, not Ekta Kapoors. Lets give some respect to their intelligence.
2. I hope that people won't be able to figure out what I truly meant by writing bullsh*t.
Argument: Do I even need to present an argument ? Nevertheless, whats the point of using a word in an article when you are wishing that no one will be able to get its import ? And I am sure that you are not doing any justice to your writing skills if you are writing for those who won't be able to make out bullshit from bullsh*t.
Nevertheless, the point which emerges from all this rambling is that if you do not want to offend people (which should depend entirely upon your set of ethics and your own social considerations) by writing some offensive word, don't write it at all. Don't go through the pains of encrypting it in a laughably moronic code only to end up getting decoded left, right and center by most of the humans and even some trained dogs and cats. I could delve into the psychological underpinnings of such an impulse, but I would rather save my and everyone else's time by terming it asyet another shining example social hypocrisy.
7 comments:
Sometimes even mindless stuff can be therapeutic especially in the lives that we lead. When we don't have to think ,analyze, probe and decide!
Does everything in life have to make sense? provoke your thought ? Be imitated ? Be accepted ? Be "right" ?
hmmm... not really... If everything was well thought out and rational, what would I be left with to blast :-) ? and I think there is no absolute right anywhere therefore one can only express his opinions. I am not even sure what 'acceptance' means... Everything is bound to be against someone's rationality, so I guess its better to conform to a wider audience...
Nevertheless, you don't think I was serious do you ? If you do, I was not and if you don't, I was :-))))
Finally, whats there to write about if you are not dissecting something mercilessly. There is only so far I can go sermonising about the greatness of Federer before I start sounding cliche. Everyone is aware of the goodness of the society and frankly speaking, neither does it make an interesting read nor does it present enough room for critical, stinging insights :-)...
You seem to be running out of juicy targets.
it seems not very many of your readers will agree with me on this, but your articles are seriously getting more and more funny as your topics start repeating.. every mention of ekta kapoor and KKKG-IAALYF tickles more nerves than it did the last time.
@Amitesh: There are no bad stories my dear. Just bad storytellers !!!.
@Nitin: I guess people take it more seriously than it was ever intended to be taken :-)...
Alright bad storyteller!
In every post you critcize same kind of charecters with same benchmarks. It is becoming so repeatative that it is almost like snakes on the plane now, a story so bad ... that it sort of start becoming entertaining.
that is all I want. It should be entertaining, fullstop. Moreover, I don't believe that I am a bad storyteller. You can have your opinion. I will have mine :-)...
Post a Comment