Borat

Regardless of Borat being a movie of bad taste, or even the fact that it has been filmed in a bizarre way (apparently, Borat lied to people he interviewed about what the material is going to be used for), banning it is like not allowing a man to speak his mind. People on the videos might sue and even win, and the courts might even decide to withdraw the movie from the market (even thought it’s a bit late for that). But to ban the movie altogether on the basis that it is bad, is to ban free speech. Image by Tostie14, some rights reserved.

If you thought that there is no censorship in today’s world, think again. Borat, the movie of really bad taste which I doubt you have not heard of, is being banned in countries such as Russia and the United Arab Emirates. Both the Russians and the Arabs hide under the culprit and say that they’ve banned it because it’s very offensive to some ethnic groups and other “blahblahs”.

Now, the movie of really bad taste, such as Borat, is generally not worth watching. But, as always, it is the choice of the individual whether or not to watch it. Russia and UAE have violated this principle. They declared that they will choose for the individuals that live in these countries. They declared they will not only censor the movie, but ban it altogether. First of all, what they are doing is wrong. Any censorship, no matter how stupid a thing being censored, is wrong. People have the right to free speech in any form – by speaking, by writing, by filming movies, etc. It is not a matter of what kind of culture resides in which area of the globe, it is a matter of life and death. Exchange of ideas, however poor in taste, is always a matter of life and death. What is really the difference between censoring a bad idea and censoring the best one, except that if you want to censor the best one, you have to keep it secret nowadays? None at all!

Insults towards ethnic groups and religions (Russia), or the movie being gross, vile and extremely ridiculous (UAE) is not reason enough to deny us free exchange of ideas – any ideas. Censoring and banning bad ideas (or movies for that matter) today, fuels the daring of various governments of the future to censor anything and everything on whatever basis they desire. Today the basis is insults and bad taste. Tomorrow it will be disregard for the current cultural norms, which might as well say that a man should not attempt to seek freedom for himself, or to explore the Solar System, or achieve any kind of scientific advancement. Make no mistake, the basis of such anti-conceptual philosophies is already being created, and not with pen and paper. Just take a look at the environmentalists who wish to stop all industry on the grounds that it is destroying the environment, while at the same time contradicting themselves that scientific advancement is necessary, but they do not see that industry generates exactly this kind of advancement; then there are the fighters for “animal rights” who literally destroy scientific advancement, particularly in the field of medicine, on the grounds of “cruelty towards animals”. Just as the grounds of Borat being insulting and of bad taste is not grounds enough to ban and censor it, the grounds of environmentalists and “animal rights” fighters are not grounds enough to stop human advancement.

The point is – just as Russia and UAE today are using beforementioned grounds to censor Borat, any country in nearer or farther future may use any established false grounds (such as that of environmentalists and “animal rights” fighters) to ban or censor anything else. Their success in banning something today gives them wind in the back for whatever bans they wish to impose in the future. Thus, all the fuss about lawsuits against Sacha Baron Cohen and his fictional Kazakh reporter Borat Sagdiyev, and about censorship, lies on grounds by far deeper and by far viler than simply “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” being a movie of bad taste.

Says who?

When people do not listen to what is being said but rather to who says it, anything goes! Hitler was probably the world’s worst criminal and tyrant, yet what he said was obeyed – not because it made sense and was good, but because he said it. And millions of people were killed because of it. Image from this site.

A dominant idea, but implicit (not the one people would often admit adhering to) today, is that things matter more depending on who says them, rather than what is being said. I will take the recent events in Hungary as an example. I’m sure that a random Hungarian person said more than once that the Hungarian people are being lied to by their government, or at least that their government is not fulfilling the promises it gave prior to elections. But who cares about a random Hungarian, right? He doesn’t know anything.

A day or two later, here comes a Hungarian prime minister, stating both things on national TV. And the whole Hungary suddenly rises to its feet and starts demolishing (see 7th paragraph in my Wild Capitalism does not exist! post). Of course, a random Hungarian does not get the opportunity to be on TV every day, but that doesn’t really matter. If only 0,1% of all Hungarians shared the same opinion, there would be 1000 of them, which is quite enough to spread the idea and eventually start a revolt. But the opinions of random individuals on matters that are not their primary concern are suppressed and the rest 10 million would not see the truth even if it was screaming into their face.

There are several blank-out mechanisms at work here. A blank-out mechanism is a mechanism which is most often implicit in some people, and by means of it, they avoid seing the problem in hopes that it would magically go away. One of them can be summarized by the words “You are not qualified to make such a judgment, so keep your mouth shut.” Explicitly, this means that one cannot make moral judgments on matters which he is not an expert in, and suggests that the one using a blank-out mechanism is willing to be rude or even violent in order to blank-out on something.

Another mechanism could be summarized by “Yes, but we are little people, what can we do?” In the face of the government, as well as in the face of things they do not know much about, many people cower and shrink when they even think of disagreeing. This blank-out mechanism works in exactly the same way. One suggests that he’d rather keep quiet and obedient than boldly stand up for his rights, or whatever moral principle is jeopardized.

There are other blank-out mechanisms, but these are the most important ones. But this is not all. Clearly, when the Hungarian prime minister declard that his government lies, everyone dropped their cloaks and went out on the street and began a revolt. How is it that suddenly everyone is emboldened by it? First of all, whoever you are, you are not likely to react positively when you are told by the person you trust that he is lying to you. The masses are expected to place trust in their government, and when this government declares that their people are lied to, it is also expected that a vast majority will not like it. This very fact, that their opinion resonates with that of millions of other people, emboldens them to revolt. Thus it is not a matter of bravery; it is a matter of being a second-hander – a person of a borrowed soul.

Even at this point, there are blank-out mechanisms at work, only now the thing being blanked-out on is different. The blanking out shifted to the past – to the fact that there existed a time at which people ignored the fact which they are now revolting against; to the fact that there were certain individuals who knew the truth before it could no longer be ignored. The very thought of such a time fuels the revolt; and the very thought of such individuals can spark violence.

To go deeper towards the essence of the matter the fact that people believe things because of who says them, rather than what is being said, is because they tend to blank-out. Blanking out is a form of non-thought; it is a response to something which would require some intellectual effort to resolve. For example, if a stranger told someone that their partner does not love them, they would most likely refuse to believe it, despite everything (and this is not an uncommon thing – it is hard not to notice women covered in bruises who say that their husbands beat them because they love them, or refuse to admit that they beat them at all). Whether or not to believe this stranger is a choice made only by making an effort to think about what has been said. To accept his statement on faith is wrong because you may be risking a happy relationship; to dismiss it on the basis of a simple consideration such as “Who is this man? I don’t know him, so why should I trust him?” is once again wrong because an unhappy relationship is a waste of life.

The solution to most of man’s problem is thought. But before any serious thinking can be done, one must identify the problem as it is, without evasion. Only when a problem is identified can it be considered, thought through, and solved. Image from this site.

The correct course of action is to think for yourself. Start from things that are most obvious – if you are often sad or bored while in your partner’s company, you probably do not love each other; if your partner is hurting you, the relationship is potentially dangerous to your life, so snap out of it. Try to look at your relationship from all aspects, for as long as you like, in order to decide. This is not to mean that such behavior must be triggered by random people who may tell you whatever they please; honest people analyze their daily life constantly, without being pointed to their errors by others. By doing so, they are more than prepared to answer anybody that they are either right or wrong – that is, if they are honest to themselves.

Be careful, though, because people often pride themselves with how much they think, when what they do in fact, is evade. Consider a fat person who wants to lose weight. The evasion might go like this: Why am I fat? It’s not because I eat too much, it’s because the fat just sticks onto me. It’s a disease. I have to see a doctor about it. After seing a doctor, here’s more evasion: The doctor said I eat too much. But it’s not my fault! What can I do when those McDonald’s hamburgers are so tasty? It’s their fault I’m fat. I wouldn’t be fat if there was no McDonald’s.

The point is that the evader never dares to blame himself for anything. First, he blames a disease, and having a disease cannot be his fault in most cases. Second, he blames McDonald’s. Third, he might blame his mother; or his boss for making him sit in the office the whole day… In the mind of an evader, his problems are never his fault. In fact, they are. If one is fat, it is because he eats too much; if one lives in a total mess, it is because he didn’t clean it up; if he got fired, it was because he didn’t work hard enough. He who doesn’t realize this will always go about solving his problems in all the wrong ways (filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s never got anyone to lose his weight, and suing a tobacco company never got anyone off nicotine).

In order to hear what is being said, rather than caring more about who is saying it, one must be honest to himself. Otherwise he cannot trust himself, thus he must trust others, and that he will do on whim. Even when the truth implies that you will have to change something in your life, it is better to accept it. Honesty is the best policy in long term, because it brings you that much closer to solving your problems. The Hungarian people had the problem of not wanting to accept the fact that they are lied to by their government. Now that the truth is out in the open, they burn, demolish and protest. That is the only thing that can come from dishonesty.

In conclusion, it is unimportant who says what – what is important is how honest you are. If you are honest, you will have no problem discerning the truth from falsehood and thus you will turn from listening to people, to listening to words.