Jonathan Dodd's latest column articles in guest reviews do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication. Ed
I am interested in the recent story about Liam Neeson. I've always liked him as a screen presence and for some reason I've always believed that he's one of the good guys. For one thing, because he had a high dignity when his wife Natasha Richardson died, and partly because she was a daughter of Vanessa Redgrave. And I liked him in love, Actually, though his character was a bit uncertain there. For that I blame the script.
Liam is entangled in the current climate of wickedness, and I believe he had no real idea what he was getting into, and eagerly wants him to flee. I want things to work differently, but I think we stick with it because social media allows anyone to input anything they want and then get a lot of attention, followed by a media frenzy. There are occasions when this is generally beneficial, at least for some, for example equal pay for women or for highlighting other inequalities where light was needed. But at the same time the heart or a thing may be lost in the voices of opinions.
Minimizing or controlling education among their followers
Liam Neeson has talked about his younger self, growing up in a particular environment, and reacting badly to an obvious event that has harmed someone he loves. In the circumstances, many years ago, he was furious and went in search of revenge in a way that was common in history, by mobs and individuals who had no opportunity to think things through. This may be due to the environment, education, lack of education or many other things.
Governments and religions have long recognized the importance of minimizing or controlling the power of their successors. The masses of people who want to kill Asia Bibi are ignorant and believe in the poisonous things that certain religious leaders are telling them, and the government in Pakistan must be very careful not to upset these same leaders, whose power lies in the ability to make big ones Crowds to mass awaken violence. Hitler understood this when he targeted the Jews. Too often, when something is perceived as faulty, the unthinkable and the backward is the search for a culprit, and it is always easy to find someone who looks or behaves differently, and makes him a target.
They will search for another minority
If you have destroyed a whole section of your country and exiled hundreds of thousands of your own people because they are different than Myanmar, you will feel better. You will not necessarily think about whether you did the right thing or solved the problem, but your emotional state has changed from anger and frustration to relief and reassurance because you have at least done something. And if the problems recur because you did not fix them at all, look for another minority. And so on and so on. To act in this way is the negation of reason.
We are constantly confusing real things with the way we think about them. As children we have no boundary between what we feel and what is real. Each parent remembers fits of rage and how our children feel so immediately and so totally that it is sometimes shocking. We also know that it is part of our work as parents to help our children regulate this, and we do so either through reason, calm and discussion, or by making them silence one way or the other , I know which way I prefer. This is not something you have learned or not, all kinds of shades are involved.
Quarrel about completely different things
I remember arguing as a kid and almost arguing about whether Corgi Toys was better than Dinky Toys. There was a lot of screaming in the classroom and on the playground. I realized that all opinions were based on the cars they owned, and their loyalty was more in it than thinking which type was actually better. We've really argued about something quite different, but we've bundled everything under the motto "which cars or toy cars are better". That was not an argument, because Corgi Toys was better because they did not have metal plates and they could be controlled, but Dinky Toys was better because they were harder, had more opening doors, and had wider reach.
I do not know why I thought about it, but I realized that it was not necessary to argue about it, and then I learned another lesson when I expressed the view that both are not really better. Both sides have united against me because until then they had dug into a kind of trench warfare based on their emotional ties. They knew who she was and who she was, and they did not like it when I told them that everything was ridiculous. We have all grown up and grown up, and I am sure most have forgotten all that or have thought the same in their own time. I'm also sure that some of them never thought about it and chose their site the same way their entire life, based on their feelings and the feelings of those close to them.
The need for enemies
I know. I'm not like that. I've never been a carpenter or associate, and my thoughts seem to be moving in different directions. But I can not help looking at things in different ways, and that's what feeds this column, among other things. I never understood football. I do not think it's a bad thing, and I do not criticize people who support one or the other team, but I can not understand why they sometimes experience such emotional ups and downs, depending on points or refereeing decisions, or getting involved Anger or quarrel over one team or another, more like the Corgi / Dinky controversy. Nor can I understand people who are getting hot and uneasy about the land or the monarchy, and I certainly do not understand people who yell at me if I ask them calmly and reasonably about their faith.
For some people, every question seems to me to be interpreted as a kind of attack. I do not understand how anyone reaches this point. This always leads to loyalty being more important than reason, and anyone who can command loyalty can lead large groups of followers to do great harm. It also promotes the need for enemies. I never understood why anyone would go that way. My question is this. Are humans born to be followers and in the wake of their emotions, to the point where they almost instantly give up their intelligence and reason to a cause or belief? Or were they not taught or convinced that the use of reason is a better way to make a decision?
Guided by our emotions
So when I heard Liam Neeson talking about himself as a teenager, he had grown up during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I was not surprised that he had acted as he had described so truthfully back then. I was surprised that he spoke so openly, and then I understood that he wanted to tell everyone that he had changed because he had learned at that time that there was another way to respond to hard news and to react. I admire him for that, and I believe he is a shining example of how we should behave and how we can turn around to become more civilized and far more effective and powerful people once we think about it, rather than our emotions to be guided.
I actually think that Liam should be applauded instead of pleading for talking about how he was in his youth and how he tried to become a better person. I can imagine a lot of things that I'm ashamed of when I've learned to become a real person, and I can imagine a lot of things I'm still struggling with. It's not a switch you click once, it's a process that you work on all your life, and there's no end to this process. It is also a very enjoyable job
Reason always exceeds the emotions
For some people it is absolutely necessary for the job. We can not imagine a nurse or a doctor refusing to treat anyone, even if the patient is abusive and violent, even for those trying to help him. There are many more examples of this selfless devotion, and we all admire the ability to behave professionally no matter what their feelings tell them. I do not think social media was so good for us in this way, because anyone can express themselves on anything, he can express this in social media, and there will always be someone who agrees. It does not confirm that and we need to remember it before we react. In the same way, a clear message based on reason and facts can be missed. That does not invalidate it.
We have no answer yet, as race and as civilization. But we lose our grip, as in the recent descent into primitive behavior over the Brexit. We have to be very careful that things do not slip any further, before the understanding that reason always transcends emotions disappears and we end up with disorder and hatred. Look at the story. That has happened before. Depressing often. I do not want to live that. You're welcome.
And there's no reason why nobody should live by reason and support a football team.
If you have been, thank you for reading this.
Image: Glyn Lowe PhotoWorks under CC BY 2.0
Image: Winluxhuman under CC BY 2.0
Image: Zlatica Hoke (VOA) under CC BY 2.0
Image: Retromobile under CC BY 2.0
Image: pxhere under CC BY 2.0
Picture: peteskeptic under CC BY 2.0