Respect & Boundaries
And its correlation to idiocracy within ‘democratic’ systems
The West has long been the poster child for how things are done accordingly, properly and rightfully.
In reality, most Western civilisations have been tormenting and toying with democracy since its birth in Greece.
Adopting democracy was more than implementing a voting system and minimising the power of the Church. A system that, once kneaded in an acceptable form, could be the new cornerstone of a society. In the framework of Western societies, it was always about power stemming from entitlement. To do so, Western aristocrats strived to obtain control, starting with overruling the impact of their religious institutions.
Some succeeded in that process more than others, resulting in the current chaos on the plateaus of liberation and actualisation. Most countries scrapped their institutions, starting with removing their founding fathers, etc. It is one thing to increase the power of the vote and free will and be led by the stronghold a majority can have while disregarding the intellectual state of the voter.
It is another thing to be misguided by assuming all eligible to vote are voting because their intellectual level allows them to vote deliberately.
By excluding the probability of those;
- with a lower intellect,
- intellectually challenged individuals,
- the acute mental state of a mentally ill person,
- the hormonal state of a woman.
The democratic voting system does not take exceptions and outliers into account. Thus, it’s working against its foundation. It proves fragile per definition, not only because it is prone to corruption.
Our ego-driven societies have thousands of self-proclaimed political experts and commentators, i.e., influencers, teenage creators and young men whose careers never took off. Also, hippies and conspiracy theories push narratives from their kitchen tables and tarnish every other viewpoint that does not fit into their narrow, hardened perspectives.
It is quite cumbersome to pinpoint where that drive comes from or when societies become accustomed to accepting the treacherous levels of continuous and persistent disrespect of authority, systems, institutions and authoritative figures in the name of whatever is going on in the heads of these creators.
The urge for destruction and the allure of chaos and demolition of persons of authority affiliated with corporations and other institutions one has nothing to do with for the benefit of their private sole proprietorship(s).
This ego-centric approach is demonstrated through a lack of respect because of fading fundamental human values such as personal boundaries.
And though some creators take a light-hearted approach towards serious situations, others tend to butcher socio-economic matters. At times, that topic is explored with a poor sense of humour. Thus, the issue becomes about the person and is completely redirected from its essence. That is how it takes the form of ridicule at the expense of those acting on behalf of an official institute, political body, etc.
To be human is also to rebel. And though humans have a long history of breaking down barriers.
What free speech does not entail and, therefore, democracy does not allow demolishing common, vital values by disrespecting the boundaries put in place.
Respecting societal institutions and political organs does not mean inserting yourself into their establishment, every narrative and making yourself and your self-importance fantastical views the central stage.
Respecting the bounds of others is being at peace with your personal views and knowing when to reframe from matters that don’t concern you directly — basically, knowing your place and having self-control.
One can formulate sound judgment and engage in conversations only when one is comfortable with one’s own views.
Nowadays, imbeciles are stepping into the debate arena intending to crush someone else viewpoint by trying to diminish their character.
Furthermore, intelligent people are confident with their stance and able to discuss issues, no matter how sensitive or heavy the topic is, without the urge to undermine with poise and respect.
Another reason why modern democracy is self-defeating is the opinion-based debates that quickly turn sour because of the overlooked or overestimated competence of its political participants. When one does not possess the knowledge, we could find ourselves in a situation where one is fixated on impressing or imposing opinions repeatedly to caress their ego, hoping for a wonder to effect.
It is as if they expect the opponent they are eager to persuade to suddenly change their views merely due to their ways or affiliation. This approach is false because its roots are dedicated to convincing other parties, those looking from the outside in, that one way of doing things is right.
By doing so, you automatically invalidate what you stand for, as you are swayed away from your worth and the compound backing your views, even if you initially obtain an instant but brief euphoric high or affirm a perception of yourself and your associates you’d want to excrete.
With that, one has given away his initial power, hence the dedication to go after that cause, narrative, case, or someone whose mindset they were set to ambush but used as their source of inspiration.
Generally, societies have accepted the bullies’ tactics of pushing through misinformation and going after people with opposing views. The idea is that as long as one repeats the false narrative and keeps propagating the same message over a more extended time period, it becomes part of society’s natural belief system.
Those conscious of their objectives not being factually true apply the law of repetition and reaffirm their invaluable stance and admiration for the opposition. This is how and why the truth is then met with scepticism.
The politics of change is not about opinions. It is not a one-person show but a concise collective conclusion with tangible evidence.
One who is not intelligent and inherently lacks boundaries demands their needs be met only and that laws be rewritten to fit their needs first. Their conduct could vary from threat, ridicule and merits gained by association.
Three main categories of people play a role in the manifestation of the reality of these politics;
Those who do not know better but to take on particular views as the propagation agenda has been forced on them since birth or a young age. And that is a constant factor til late age. It’s engraved in their fabric; therefore, it will always stay the same or is challenging to adjust.
The followers are the central majority, including the easy-daisies with the mindset that goes after the ‘majority is right’ vote. The foundation of this category consists mainly of people with intellectual and emotional challenges.
Some know but refuse to acknowledge to come to terms with the truth, even if they morally struggle with these false narratives.
A chunk of the later group is willing and open to adapt their take on a situation once presented with evidence, facts, data, etc.
A percentage stays insignificant but chooses safe.
The first group is under the impression that the fabricated truth is how it is. They are the least likely to change their views over time as they need to be taught better.
The second group could grow out of their views.
Respect means being mindful of and considering other people’s viewpoints. When you can leave that case alone peacefully without any further subsequent emotions, you demonstrate respect for free speech and others and their boundaries.
Learning to respect others, in general, could mean untangling some roots. It means enabling air to flow through your veins and eliminating whatever is calcifying your internal transmitters.
Respect is not grounded in self-importance or competition, nor is it rooted in bigotry.
Nihilating other objectives is transgressing against the boundaries of that objective. Respect does not fall under that. Many topics, issues, people and situations have survived long before most excellent creators and political commentators.
The creators and rulers of every brilliant narrative.
When a man claims to be of a certain stature but is comfortably giggling like an eight-year-old in a microphone to confuse and further frustrate the situation, credibility as an adult and a man is zero.
Yet, it is those manufacturers of distorted reality and spreaders of misinformation that get to inject their hateful venom into future generations by preaching to them at universities and other safe spaces.
The laughability factor of serious issues does not measure intelligence, nor is it indicative of any maturity.
The number of snarky comments one manages to make doesn’t contribute to the entertainment level, nor does it determine the quality of these senseless debates led by ego-manic creators.
The impact on young people is concerning.
People with loose or no boundaries tend to have low tolerance for other views. This is connected to intelligence as it has something to do with blind adaptability. As a result of their lack of personal boundaries and thus lack of self-respect, they cue after the loudest narrative, not realising that that could be the most misleading one. They could be moulded into believing anything.
Some are so set on their convictions that they try to justify their views. Think of a soccer hooligan or the Trump supporters after his election loss.
Societies are running in the same circles of transgression against all standard human bounds. Luckily, we get to do it over and over and over again every four years.
As a generic rule, everyone is susceptible to believing in the custom truth. A governance type that comes mainly from the weapon-producing societies that cultivate that mindset to oppose the actual truth. It is, therefore, that modern democracy forces true heroes to live in exile while criminals are winning over souls to fend for their next war crimes.
Dare; Ko-fi.com/warsangarrow
