You know, there's something I don't get. You know how sometimes you start chatting with an old friend after being out of touch for years? And when you chat, you would ask each other things like "Where are you staying now?" "What are you doing?" "Where are you working?" (or studying, previously)
Now here is what happens when I ask people these questions. Any one of them (questions, I mean). They will give me a really short reply, often consisting of a single word. (or name of a place, depending on what my question was) I mean, they know that we haven't been in contact in ages, and I have no way of knowing what they have been doing all this while. Would it hurt to elaborate a bit? If it were me initiating the conversation, I'd understand...they just don't want to talk to me, I'd conclude. And then I'd leave them alone. But what about when they are the ones who started asking me stuff in the first place?
When people ask me what I'm doing these days, etc...if I don't remember telling them about my current activities, I will tell them whatever I feel they might not know. After all, why answer "I'm in Penang", then have them ask "Doing what?", then saying "Working", then have them ask "Where?", then reply "Bayan Lepas", then have them ask "What company?" or "What field?", etc, etc? WHY?!?!???
I don't get it. But that's exactly what I have to do (the asking) when I'm chatting with an old friend. It gets to a point where I get weary of asking questions (it's like I'm forcing them to tell me their secrets, ya know?)
I get the feeling that they do not want to give me any information about their lives, but seem extraordinarily keen to find out more about mine. Why? Are they trying to come across as caring? Caring about me?? Excuse me, but if you cared, you wouldn't brush aside my questions, would you?
So that's it. I always seem to be giving out information and not getting any back. So now sometimes I will answer one question, then refuse to answer any more until some of my questions are answered in return. Sorry guys, you made me so petty.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Bad lessons from TV
Wow, it's definitely been a long time since I've written here. I drafted this about 2 weeks ago...right after reading a newspaper article about some guys beating up a thief they had caught. It's a little formal, because I initially thought I would send it in to the said newspaper. But after that...I don't think my rambling is very coherent, so I'll just post it here instead.
Recently there have been cases of citizens taking the law into their own hands. For example, catching "foreigners" who tried to vote during the last elections, and beating up thieves who were caught.
These actions are clearly wrong. But what I would like to discuss is not so much these actions, but how they are endorsed, indirectly, by TV series.
In a law-enforcement series, an agent kills a man, sniper-style. This is because the man killed the agent's family. The agent's team find out the truth, that their friend is the killer. But they cover it up. In another case, the team finds out that the same agent's mother-in-law killed a man. Instead of bringing her to justice, the agent hires a lawyer to protect her interests.
We could say that this is how things happen in the real world. People are not always fully honest. But it sends a wrong message to the viewers. The young viewers, maybe I should say. These agents are their heroes, their idols. They would believe that this is the right thing to do.
In another TV series, the title character shoots and kills a man in plain view of a number of witnesses. He is arrested and goes on trial. His defense is that the man he killed was a murderer who had killed many people, including his family. (the same excuse again, did you notice?) He is found "not guilty", presumably because the jury believes that he did the right thing.
How can he be not guilty? Even if the man killed his family, he does not have the right to execute any criminal. Maybe they could have given him a lighter sentence, but letting his walk free, as a "not guilty" man...isn't that stretching it?
In yet another series, also about a law enforcement agency, two agents defy their boss on two separate occasions. Each time, they are found to have made the right decision (by disobeying orders) and in the end are commended for their actions instead of facing disciplinary action.
I believe that they are trying to send the message that disobedience shows character. It might be true, but disobedience in this field can also prove disastrous. Especially if it's a hot-headed young recruit trying to act smart. And isn't that what might happen to some young and impressionable viewers?
Recently there have been cases of citizens taking the law into their own hands. For example, catching "foreigners" who tried to vote during the last elections, and beating up thieves who were caught.
These actions are clearly wrong. But what I would like to discuss is not so much these actions, but how they are endorsed, indirectly, by TV series.
In a law-enforcement series, an agent kills a man, sniper-style. This is because the man killed the agent's family. The agent's team find out the truth, that their friend is the killer. But they cover it up. In another case, the team finds out that the same agent's mother-in-law killed a man. Instead of bringing her to justice, the agent hires a lawyer to protect her interests.
We could say that this is how things happen in the real world. People are not always fully honest. But it sends a wrong message to the viewers. The young viewers, maybe I should say. These agents are their heroes, their idols. They would believe that this is the right thing to do.
In another TV series, the title character shoots and kills a man in plain view of a number of witnesses. He is arrested and goes on trial. His defense is that the man he killed was a murderer who had killed many people, including his family. (the same excuse again, did you notice?) He is found "not guilty", presumably because the jury believes that he did the right thing.
How can he be not guilty? Even if the man killed his family, he does not have the right to execute any criminal. Maybe they could have given him a lighter sentence, but letting his walk free, as a "not guilty" man...isn't that stretching it?
In yet another series, also about a law enforcement agency, two agents defy their boss on two separate occasions. Each time, they are found to have made the right decision (by disobeying orders) and in the end are commended for their actions instead of facing disciplinary action.
I believe that they are trying to send the message that disobedience shows character. It might be true, but disobedience in this field can also prove disastrous. Especially if it's a hot-headed young recruit trying to act smart. And isn't that what might happen to some young and impressionable viewers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
