.jpg)
The matter is simply misplaced morality- to define it more
precisely misplaced notion what is supposedly thought as morality and the
eagerness to embrace it as a vindication and display of undue conceit -moral
vanity. When such thinking is seen in adults those who are educated, erudite,
articulate and in respectable position it is false and stinks of emptiness and
hypocrisy.
“To each his own”, is an agreeable dictum for social living.
But I can only disagree with people using it to proclaim higher moral grounds
for social consumption and acceptance. However in the context mentioned in the
next paragraph, I presume that the opinion that led to the “red flag” was
egregious and silly.
A few months back a chat group was begun on the social media
platform “WHATSAP” by former graduate class mates. The group was ostensibly
called “the class of 80”. Great! About
thirty class mates from the 80 batch were successfully enrolled into the group.
And dear, some of them are hyper active on the platform, both after office
hours and during office hours too. I myself have been an occasional visitor and
picking up subjects I could discuss, though opinions in those discussions would
converge and also differ, fair enough.
The group is being administered by a jolly good friend and he throws up
an occasional “yellow flag” and even a “red flag” depending upon the
acceptability of the comments or posts. A means of control and I presume it is
to act as a sieve and control of obscenity and revilement of members of the group
that could not be entertained.
But I'm afraid it was downright ridiculous when the
administrator flagged me down with a ‘red’ when I posted this piece on the platform.
His act can be shunned as frivolous and trivia I suppose,
but such opinions originating from people of whom some of them were vociferous
and active on the social media in support of the dissent towards moral policing
and the “kiss of love “protest, I wonder what outrage is explicit in this
innocuous post quoting a physician who was awarded the Nobel for medicine. And
the quote was factual and forthright without mincing words stating the pitiable
priorities in medical research funding.
Yes it is apparent that the words “boobs” and “penises”
certainly offended and enraged the administrator. What miserable and unfortunate
organs are they that the creator perhaps in a petulant mood callously foisted
upon hapless women and men! For me to post an observation from a notable physician
who referred to those words in the right context and in the in correct spell is
manifestly obscene, repugnant and gauche. So went the judgment, I presume.
Now, this reminds me of another incident which was comical in
almost the same context. When the “Kiss of Love” protest was in swing, I irresistibly
posted my observation and opinion on my facebook
page against the fallacy of what is termed culture and the hypocrisy of
moral policing. A post – a rebuttal , tongue in cheek,vile and vehement was posted by a person on his facebook
page assailing my stand and vilifying what he called the advocacy of
unrestrained sex. He baptised voices against moral policing as that of votaries
of copulation in public like dogs and immoral behviour in public. What amused
me to no end was that he, the protagonist was a self confessed fascinator of many
homosexual liaisons in his more youthful days. Politely I must term his comment
amusing and rebut him by saying he cannot see the wood for the trees.
Now where is threshold for hypocrisy and acceptable moral behavior?
What was offensive about the comment of the Nobel laureate and posting it on
social platform? Why was the administrator reluctant and peeved to let a
discussion originate on the subject?
Looking at the outraged rejoinder on facebook ,is it perhaps alright to be unrestrained and
unconventional at heart and in private while being a puritan by day light?
It will be a wonder if a few Bloggers would respond to this post. The words are too abhorrent to mention , to comment . Aren't they ?
