White lies are viewed by most Americans as an acceptable form of communication. Maybe some people will argue that there are circumstances where you should tell a white lie to preserve someone's feelings or avoid confrontation, circumstances where if you don't tell the lie, you are the one being callous and mean. I disagree with all of that and pretty much always have. (A white lie is a lie that is meant to politely keep someone from a painful truth when the truth isn't that important. For example, telling someone that her ugly dress is actually cute is a white lie, but so is telling someone that you think her boyfriend is nice when he's actually giving you red flags.) Reasons 1 and 2: The truth shouldn't be that hurtful, and criticism should be a catalyst for growth. The primary excuse preferred by people telling white lies is that white lies are meant to minimize harm. If a friend would be deeply hurt by a piece of information, then it is better to withhold this piece of information or give an outright false piece of information to preserve the friend's feelings, but is this really necessary? Is this really good in the long run? Different from most positivity-obsessed folks, I really don't mind being judged or even disliked. Other people not liking me has no relevance to my self-worth, and I really don't care if people don't like my outfit or think that my writing is garbage, so giving me "the harsh truth" really won't hurt me. In fact, sometimes I want to be critiqued, for someone to tell me what's wrong with me to help me improve. None of us are perfect, and all of us have room for growth. If you are so afraid of hurting your friend's feelings that you won't tell her that there's something wrong with her even when she asks you, you're preventing her from growing. My ideal setup is one where people grow through receiving criticism (as long as they're not purposefully worded in a way that's mean) and don't take disagreements so personally. Just because someone doesn't like your outfit or hates your favorite movie doesn't mean that they hate you as a person, but if you truly buy into the whole "telling white lies is the best policy" thing, it's easy to believe that the only reason why someone would tell you "the harsh truth" is that they don't like you and don't mind hurting you. Reason 3: White lies can violate people's explicit wishes and lead people down the wrong path due to misinformation. White lies are partially defined as lies about things that aren't important, but the issue is that you can't always predict what other people consider important. When you tell someone a white lie, you are telling them that the true answer to this question isn't important, but what if it is to them? How can you know? How can you tell the difference between a stranger fishing for compliments and the same stranger asking for genuine advice? You don't know their mannerisms yet. You think that the truth would hurt them too much. How can you know? Let them decide what's important to them and how to react to things. On an individual basis, there are instances where telling a white lie isn't the worst thing that you can do. If your friend is asking about her outfit, and you know that your friend is only fishing for compliments, and your friend also understands that she's only fishing for compliments, a white lie wouldn't be inappropriate since your friend is expecting you to lie to her. I've met individuals who are perfectly fine with white lies and don't care what the truth is. Telling white lies to those individuals could be interpreted as simply granting them their wish. On the other hand, some people like me make it explicitly clear that we don't appreciate dishonesty. We are hurt beyond words when we discover that someone has lied to us. Telling us white lies is the opposite of respecting our wish (and harm our feelings too). The other thing about the culture of white lies is that it doesn't just affect the person receiving the lie. If you truly believe that people who have nothing nice to say shouldn't speak at all, it can feel very uncomfortable to give advice even when someone has made it explicitly clear that they want your genuine opinion on something important. The culture of white lies can also push someone to keep their mouth shut about crucial matters. Maybe you meet a friend's boyfriend who the friend is absolutely infatuated with, but you think it's actually a creep. You don't feel comfortable pointing it out because you know that your friend would be insulted, and you don't want to be rude, so you instead say that they're cute together. Your friend is happy... for a few weeks before the guy starts cheating on her or turns abusive. When in doubt, just tell the truth. Maybe the truth is important. Maybe it's not, but that's not your call. Reason 4: Lies often come out, and when they do, they often cause more pain than they would've if they were told promptly and sensitively in the first place. One kind of dishonesty that I particularly dislike is pretending to be someone's friend when you actually don't like them all that much. You can't keep it up forever. Eventually, the person you've tried to be polite to is going to find out that they've been pouring their heart into a friendship that isn't real. I think this is more of a common issue with younger people who're forced into friendships by parents or teachers or people who have friend groups that include someone that they don't like, but there is literally no positive side to pretending to be someone's friend. The positive side to telling someone that you don't like them (if they've been trying hard to make friends with you) is that they can leave you alone or even better, maybe they didn't realize that they've been doing a little thing to annoy you, they fix their flaw, and you two become real friends. In summary, whether it's morally okay on an individual basis tell a white lie is often up to whether the person is expecting a white lie or not. If they've made it clear that they want the truth, tell them the truth. If you're not sure, tell them the truth. The information could be more important than you previously thought. However, I would personally prefer to live in a world where white lies aren't necessary. To review: Reasons 1 and 2: The truth shouldn't be that hurtful, and criticism should be a catalyst for growth. Reason 3: White lies can violate people's explicit wishes and lead people down the wrong path due to misinformation. Reason 4: Lies often come out, and when they do, they often cause more pain than they would've if they were told promptly and sensitively in the first place. Originally written 3 February 2020
0 Comments
In America, I often hear things like “I’m opposed to organized religion. But spirituality is awesome.” Although of course I’ve met people who are against all religions and anything that can’t be currently proved by science. It seems a lot of opponents against religions believe the worst thing about them is the worshippers telling others what to do, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with the religions themselves. I think this is objectively false when it comes to religions like Christianity where horrid things like slavery are condoned in their religious texts, although I do believe when it comes down to it, how religions function in society and how their adherents treat others matter the most over what their scriptures say, since it’s not like a novel can get up and kill me for being a disobedient woman. Really, all aspects of a religion should be criticized. But I won’t talk about Christianity today. This article is about why I think religious beliefs themselves can harm someone, why all spirituality should be discussed, and why I feel upset when I hear someone say that Asian religious are so peaceful and unlike the awful religions of Christianity and Islam. My traditional Chinese mother raised me with a mixture of two religions: Buddhism and Taoism. This is quite normal in Asia; our religions are much more tolerant and none of our gods have rules like “You must worship no one else but me” so I’d guess most religious adherents don’t actually subscribe to just one religion, even if they only identified with one of them. One of my most harmful memories regarding my mother is a time when we were in a car—I think she was sending me to school—and she said something along the lines of “We must’ve done something terrible in our past lives to deserve to be abused by my husband.” I didn’t think much of it at the time. I didn’t want to think about that possibility and told myself whatever deity was in charge of reincarnation simply messed up. I also had another excuse ready: maybe I was meant to be abused so I could later become an activist and stand against child abuse. It was a sick way of feeling slightly less awful about losing my childhood to the monster my mother married. But as I got older, I still thought about this. What if I had believed her? That I deserved to be abused? What if I had internalized that and believed I should continue to be abused? What if I not only allowed my father to continue to abuse me but also made a self-fulfilling prophecy to marry an abusive man because I thought I didn’t deserve better? What if this thought bled into other areas of my life? Oh, I’m sick? I deserve to have a fever because I did something bad in a past life. It’s obvious that “You deserve pain” is a harmful message to any kid or adult. Now when I hear someone say believing in reincarnation is a personal choice, I cringe a little. In this connected society, our “personal” choices affect those around us. Not that believing in reincarnation is automatically bad, but if you use that belief to justify child abuse, maybe rethink your worldviews. Also note that my mother, like most adherents of her religions, does not listen to a preacher or anything like that. She visits her temple about once a month or whenever she feels like to light incense and pray. The temple staff only come in to make sure no one is stealing or burning anything, and occasionally tell tourists what something means. I’ve been dragged to that temple hundreds of times and not once has someone come up to me and decided to tell me some dogma. Yet my mother internalized very harmful beliefs and almost passed them onto me. And then I realized this idea of karma is harmful in even bigger ways. Just like Christians can talk about original sin or their god’s plan, or whatever stupid excuse why their omnipotent god would allow his own creations to suffer, anyone who believes in reincarnation can use past lives as an excuse as well. “Why is that man homeless?” “He killed someone two lives ago. We shouldn’t help him.” “Someone murdered my cousin.” “Let it go. He’ll be punished in his next lives.” I’ve observed some believers can produce a kind of bystander effect; they believe they shouldn’t bother alleviating the suffering around them or demanding justice when they see atrocities committed because their deities or some higher power will make everything right. This doesn’t require adherence to any “organized religion” or even belief in a deity. This just requires any kind of belief in a higher power, which is why I think karma is harmful even without the presence of some religion. One could argue karma’s purpose is to “control the masses” and manipulate commoners into not committing crimes, therefore it’s useful. This is arguably the purpose of all religions and their teachings. But just like “Jesus is watching” karma is a flawed idea. First of all, despite most folks in the world having some religious beliefs, murders and other crimes happen all the time. Many believers, even ones who believe genuinely, simply adjust their views or reinterpret their religious texts to suit their own desires. Or they don’t even truly believe. Simply relying on religions to curb crime is a bad idea, and one could argue in an ideal society people would refrain from committing crimes because they have morals, not because they’re terrified of hell or being reborn as an insect. Secondly, there’s no proof karma works since we can’t currently track souls through lives and see if bad actions in our current lives actually affect our next lives. Which means criminals can continue committing crime without remorse because they don’t believe in karma or they’ve adjusted their views to suit themselves, and no one will have any motivation to do much about it because they all believe karma will fix it. But what if karma’s not real? My point is, karma isn’t a harmless idea and has every single flaw of Christianity’s “Don’t do that or you’ll go to hell.” It’s just another version of it, though karma seems to be more individual. Christianity makes nice lists to tell all its adherents what will cause them to land in hell or heaven. With karma alone (without the presence of religion or gods), it seems believers can mostly decide for themselves if they suspect an action will land them an awful next life, which might result in less guilt about things like being gay. And at least I’m pretty sure karma lacks the concept of original sin. But even so, if you’re against Christianity and others of its ilk because you think “God is watching” is a harmful and flawed concept for whatever reasons, then you better be against the idea of karma as well. There’s also the issue about each culture having its own morals. Are morals universal? If not, how is it decided if an action is immoral? If someone lived and died in a culture where murder is fine and never had the chance to “learn” otherwise, would that person be punished if they murdered? This question also exists in Christianity. How does its deity judge individuals from different cultures? I’m sure all different sorts of ideas exist. I’d also like to briefly rant about Wiccan’s “three-fold law.” If I understand correctly, some Wiccans believe if I am a witch and curse someone, I’ll receive the curse three-fold (and same if I bless someone). So, if a man rapes me and I curse him, the universe will punish me for that? I have yet to see a believer say rapists will be raped three times for each time they rape. As far as I understand, the three-fold law only deals with spells, though some Wiccans might also believe in karma. I don’t know much about “true Wicca” or Wicca outside of Tumblr but I’m certain this law is sick, and it has the same flaws as the above beliefs. I’ve seen many believers claim Wicca is so different from all the “oppressive” religions like Christianity, but is it? Honestly, if witchcraft is real, witches are morally obligated to curse rapists and other scum because we should all try to help others when we can. Just like if we saw a person being robbed on the street, we should call the cops if we feel comfortable doing so. If we don’t and walk pass ignoring the scene (or praying for help that won’t come) for no reason other than because we don’t feel like assisting, then we’re just slightly responsible for that person getting robbed, and all the subsequent victims that could have been saved if the robber was arrested after his first crime. Witches should curse all scum if they feel they believe that person deserves it and have enough energy to do so. By the way, this article thinks the law is simply from “a misinterpretation of a passage in a work of fiction written by Gerald Gardner, the grandfather of modern Wicca.” You may further research the origins of this idea on your own. At first I wanted to talk more about how my mother’s religion ruined my childhood, but I’ll save the rest for another rant. What I want made clear is that all beliefs can be used to instill fear into children, even “pure” ones like the eastern idea of reincarnation. And all forms of “Let the universe take care of the issues” is bad, whether you believe your deity, karma, or some other higher power is in charge. The next time you see someone suffering, don’t wait around for an invisible entity to arrive. That person needs your help. Originally written 4 February 2018
It’s no secret that Asian-Americans are underrepresented in films and television, but let’s explore exactly how bad the issue is. We only make up about 5.1% of all speaking or named characters, and half of today’s films have none of these characters at all (Annenberg). In a sample done by Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, only 1.4% of the films released in 2014 had Asian leads (The New York Times). Where are all of the roles for Asian-Americans? Many remakes are reimagined with white characters in place of previously Asian ones. In The Martian, a white actor named Mackenzie Davis will play Mindy Park, who was Korean in the novel. Meanwhile, “Absolutely Fabulous” has Janette Tough dressed as a stereotypical Asian woman (The New York Times). Emma Stone played a partly Asian woman in “Aloha”, which did not ask any Asian or partly Asian actors to audition for the role (The Hollywood Reporter). A Tibetan monk in the “Doctor Strange” comics is remade as a white Celtic mystic played by Tilda Swinton (ThinkProgress). A live-action version of “Death Note”, a prominent anime, will star a primarily white cast. So will “Ghost in the Shell”, featuring Scarlett Johansson playing a Japanese character (The New York Times). In fact, the movie only has one Japanese actor: Takeshi Kitano (ThinkProgress). Studios often make excuses for their decisions. Sometimes, they claim that they hire white actors to play Asian parts because fictional characters shouldn’t be limited by race. The labels behind Ghost in the Shell, Paramount and DreamWorks, say their movie represents more cultures than just Japanese (The New York Times). Marvel has tried a similar tactic but also adds that they did not want to interfere with the politics of whether Tibet was a part of China and thought avoiding a Tibetan character was the best option (ThinkProgress). However, these are only excuses. Marvel could have made a different substitution that did not result in a previously Asian character become white. When characters are written as white or racially ambiguous, Asian actors are rarely hired to play them. Though the casting agents insist they are only trying to hire the best actor for the part (The Hollywood Reporter), we rarely receive roles outside of the stereotypical Asian part. The people behind the making of movies seem to think that the experiences of white men are universal and in contrast, the stories of minorities are more niche (The New York Times). Another common excuse to hire white actors for Asian parts is the perceived dearth of well-known Asian-American actors. Max Landis, the screenwriter for Ghost in the Shell, told the public that he couldn’t find an Asian actress good enough to play the protagonist because he didn’t want to hire someone without a track record of parts in money-making movies. I’m not sure how he expects Asian-American actors to have a track record if no one gives them a chance. Plus, many white actors aren’t held up to the same impossible standard. Chris Hemsworth has starred in many flops, yet he is still considered a wise investment (The New York Times). Many white actors are hired for large roles without being famous first, such as Chris Pratt (The Hollywood Reporter). If it’s simply about money, a study done by the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African-American Studies shows that diverse films often make more money and films featuring whitewashed characters often fail at the box office (The New York Times). The real reason most movies only feature white people is because most writers and producers are white, and the stories they create reflect their own narratives (The Hollywood Reporter). Who is portrayed in films and television matters because children often learn lessons from watching the characters on screen, and they need to be able to identify with and look up to them. They need representation. When they see their race shoved into limited roles, children can believe less in their own abilities to accomplish more (IU News). Main characters are especially important because they get to have the loudest voice in a story (The Hollywood Reporter). The best way to achieve a difference is to start from the top: having more Asian-American writers, directors, and producers. Originally written 22 March 2017
Edited for publication 28 January 2018 As an introvert with some value of self-esteem, I get pressured into things very often (because I'd never willingly do them). Every time there’s a dance or another useless social function, all the extroverts around me go, “Just go. You’ll like it.” This statement has always been incredibly odd to me. What makes them think that they, strangers, can tell me what I might like? (Everyone who’s known me for more than a few days knows I will not like it, so most people who tell me to attend social functions and such are strangers.) Of course they probably enjoy attending social functions, as must extroverts do. But how did they survive this long and have never discovered that differences exist between individual humans? Some people have the decency to accept they don’t know everything. They’ll instead say something a bit more chancy such as “You’ll probably like it. You won’t know unless you try.” This is also an incorrect statement for practical reasons. I have enjoyed one social function I thought I’d hate. I was in summer camp, and the first Saturday had a sports day where every single person was required to attend. I ended up bonding with a couple girls who also hated sports. None of us participated in the sports but hid until it was over. Kids had to volunteer to participate—the adults didn’t have a list of our names—so we simply pretended we’d already gone if someone approached us about it. I ended up making a best friend for the rest of the summer, and we kept in contact for a few years after that. So it’s true that I might have fun if I attended every social event possible, but that’s not practical. If we assume a chance meeting like this appears for every fifty social event I attended, I would be wasting countless hours of time making myself bored and uncomfortable for the sake of chasing that one chance encounter. It’s simply not practical. Also, that sports day was required for everyone, introverted or extroverted. I only met that special girl because she was forced to attend too. Attending optional social functions would be near useless for me because I generally only bond with introverts, and no self-respecting introvert would willingly attend some social function. So why should I force myself to go? As for thinking I’d enjoy a social function for its main purpose… Some people seem to believe I was born an introvert and have never tried a single extroverted thing in my life. That’s just false. I, and most introverts I know, have spent our childhoods pretending to be extroverted in order to fit in with our classmates and avoid negative attention from adults. I’ve been to several dances and other social functions—both required and optional ones—and they’ve all bored me to death. Why would I force myself to attend a seventh dance? Doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different outcomes is simply idiotic. I know myself quite well. I haven’t changed since those dances in any core ways. If anything, I’ve become even more introverted, at least at first glance, because I’ve become more sure of myself and gave up pretending to look extroverted. Stop telling introverts—or really anyone who’s different from you—that we’d have fun if we only tried to push our boundaries. We know ourselves better than you do. Stop thinking you know anything about strangers’ lives and what their version of fun entails. Originally written 26 January 2018
|
Archives
February 2020
Categories |