On Lying to Children

We teach children not to lie. We teach them that lying is an act of cowardice and an affront to the dignity and respect that others deserve, so of course we feel comfortable lying to children. We actually seem to enjoy holding the truth over them, just out of reach. We invest energy and years into feeding their delusions only because they are willing to accept what is being told to them. This is their nature, as is human nature when sources beyond our direct involvement or understanding (the media, government, laws...etc.) dictate how we are to think. But how much more human potential could be unlocked if we valued the truth as much as we value maintaining a child's delusions?

The child molester lies to his victim to gain access to their trust, but just imagine what that child would do in that situation if the child molester had told the kid the truth upfront. Image if what society told our trusting children was the truth also, and what kind of change that next generation could bring about in the world as a result of knowing the truth. If the truth could save a child from trusting a child molester, then truth could save a child from trusting our kindly police, teachers, parents, and society in general as immediately. Imagine for a second how many children would be saved. Imagine how many could be saved from committing the hypocrisies of adulthood if they were told as children to loathe corporate and political hypocrites as much as they are told to fear "strangers." 

The next time someone respects a child's dignity, it will be because they will be telling them the truth. And while it's true that "the truth hurts," how much pleasure do lies, sarcasm, and delusions bring? How much disillusionment and disengagement could be spared in our young adults if as children they were reared from the start to know how the world is and what it will take to change it? Imagine how many children could be saved from learning the lies of our fast-money, sex-obsessed, violent, materialist, culture of selfishness and sin from all those back-window sources, if we as adults could be there at the front door to greet them with the truth when they asked for it? How many could be spared the draconian sentences of the law for naively exposing themselves to each other if they could be told upfront how the law does more to punish them than it does to protect them? 

Empowerment is the enemy of ignorance, and it is given with the truth. It does no child any good to have the truths of life withheld from them, even the most unfriendly truths. For instance, everyone says "death is a part of life," but no one wants to accept that a child of theirs is ever going to die. People either deny to themselves the fact that children are living entities capable of death, or they deny to themselves and to their children the fact that living things have to die, in order to keep their emotions on the issue intact. They have to lie to themselves to justify stripping the humanity away from a child in the process of protecting that child's delusions. Delusions that keep the child a corporate slave, for instance, do little to nothing to empower them, no matter how much "girl power" or "guns and ammo" you get them drunk on, but the truth will always set them free. 

Every lie to a child is also a lie to the one perpetuating the lie. The one confusing the maintenance of ignorance for the "safeguarding of innocence" is lying to herself. The liar is only safeguarding themselves from their own anxiety. The liar is only safeguarding their authority and control over a child's will born out of their fear of the world. Conversely, the one telling the truth to the child is the only one doing everything the liar has convinced herself she is doing. The one telling the truth is actually the one doing the protecting, respecting, and sparing of the child from grief. If a child is capable of asking a question, they are capable of hearing the truth as assuredly as they are capable of hearing a lie. The air does not discriminate one from another. 

Many Shades of Grey?

Anything is justifiable with the words "look at it this way..." but that doesn't make it justified. I am a firm believer in moral objectivism--that the activities of human beings are either right or wrong, but that we are all just incapable of grasping the true difference. We instead invent this concept of "the many shades of grey between black and white" to justify our actions (no matter what they are) in the event that our conscience is unable to weigh the pros and cons of our activities or those of others. This is how we can get away with judging the deeds of others with more impunity than our own actions, based almost entirely on our perceptions of other people rather than the facts of their circumstance. This "many shades of gray" theory gives us the benefit of the doubt no matter what, and allows us to search out justifications for our actions no matter what the consequences of those actions were. The reason I don't subscribe to this "moral subjectivism" is because the worst among us--child molesters even--are able to use it to find moral justification for actions that our society convicts them for. Now ask yourself, are you no better than a child molester?

It is a fact that there are circumstances in life where morality is ambiguous to us, where the pros and cons of doing something force us to choose the "lesser of two evils," or force us to choose randomly because the consequences seem either morally neutral or are too large or small to conceive, or have their effects at a great distance from us. But let's be honest, when people insist that "there are many shades of grey," what they are really saying is that there is only grey. If even minute immoralities can be shirked off as possibly containing ambiguities, and therefore be rendered "neutral," then the same could logically be said about large immoralities (which is why we have justifications for murder, war, and even child abuse), so what is really meant is that all actions are ambiguous, if only because it is the logical extension, unless one wants to start deliniating what is ambiguous and what isn't (which is just to be acquiescing to moral objectivism anyways).

So instead, the subjectivist then jumps to label an action as "more acceptable" simply due to the particulars of who is doing the action and what they were doing it for, or some other immaterial criterion we can establish as a judgment point in our own minds that is separate from its ambiguous consequences. That way, that which is more divorced from our actions directly, that which is the work of the majority, that which is not done by intent (or by accident), that which is performed by people of authority (political or professional), and that which we do (as opposed to the like actions of others), all becomes "more acceptable," simply because it tends to be the case in nature, regardless of the very real consequences of those actions. People and intentions become more important than actions and consequences.

It is as if we are to accept, and eat, the spoiled fruit off the ground just because the picker had "intended" to pick it when ripe and just forgot. "Oh well, we say, the picker is a professional and he didn't mean to let our food spoil. It wasn't his fault, therefore, his food is safe to eat." It may sound like a straw-man criticism, but consider what professionals are allowed to get away with doing unintentionally in real life, particularly towards minors, under the premise of "they didn't do it intentionally." Good intentions aren't good enough. That which is rotten, is rotten, regardless of whether it was intended to be ripe when served. Likewise, psychiatrists who intend to treat teen depression with a prescription for a series of suicide pills, have produced rotten fruit, regardless of their intentions to treat and heal. We can't seperate or ignore the negative consequences of actions simply because we trust the person who did the action, and likewise, can't overemphasize wrongdoing simply because we don't trust them. Either way, we are letting perspectives govern consequences, and in the case above, putting psychiatrists before clients, or perpetrators before their victims.

Almost all actions carry with them positive consequences and negative consequences, so on the surface it may appear that morality is subjective, and that all judgment about right and wrong "depends on how you look at it." The problem with this view is that it inevitably forces you, the subjectivist, to concede to a new set of moral laws which may not be so tolerant to your intuitions--the laws of nature--where the strong cut down the weak, the majority cuts down the minority, the powerful cut down the impoverished, the old cut down the young, and the young cut down the old--where the affluent justify the ruin of those who suffer at a distance, and where each of us escapes all judgment from every "ambiguous" deed and non-deed simply because the court in our own minds is always adept at finding justification and absolution from the feeling of guilt, regardless of consequence. This is the new moral law that you inevitably subscribe to when you accept the "many shades of grey" illustration, because this is what we see happen in the world when culture accepts the subjective nature of morality as if it was unsubstantiated truth (by its own subjective principles). We are forced to base our lives around the law, which allows for us to justify our immorality so long as doing such is legal, and so long as there is a benefit (no matter how minute) stemming from our actions (no matter how destructive). So long as all actions are considered "grey," there is no right and wrong, there is just "grey," for everything and everyone.

It is understandable that in circumstances of ambivalence or ambiguity we're forced to make a choice and accept whatever consequences or benefits come from the action. What is not understandable though is when we have to justify to ourselves that the action we were forced to take ultimately was the correct one, or at least, the better choice, after the fact. It seems merely self-serving, a quest to save the ego from itself so as not to subject it to the fact that the "lesser of two evils" we just chose was still in fact "evil." If it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation beforehand, and you choose "do," you're still as damned after the fact as you were before, let's not forget. Just because you chose doesn't mean you haven't produced damnation on yourself. It's better to accept the consequences of your actions, accept that your choice had repercussions, than to carry on as if you just averted catastrophe simply because you made a choice. Who can we pass judgment on? No one, because no one is qualified. All we can do is do the best we can and accept the consequences that come inevitably from "our best guess."

If an action has more negatives than positives, it is not "a shade of grey," it is morally wrong, and sometimes, things that are morally wrong are necessary to do, but their necessity doesn't make them right. If an action has more positives than negatives, it is merely "less wrong," or morally acceptable at best. Only actions that produce no negative consequences whatsoever can be considered unquestionably morally right (if they even exist), and only actions that produce no positive consequences are unquestionably morally wrong. What those morally right and wrong actions are, though, is difficult for anyone to say because the human mind is governed by instinct, emotion, reason, culture, legality, and a whole host of other characteristics that influence our perspective. Without these forces pulling us in one direction or another, we'd be able to possess the purely logical expression that morality is, that thing that we are all just stumbling around trying to get a handle on and align our intuitions to. Mankind invents its own moral laws to try to simulate the perfect "form" of morality strewn from our intuition (as evolved in us via instinct) and expressed as culture, but all man-made systems fail to express it completely, in one simple formula, the fact of what is "black" and what is "white." So we have "grey" only because we don't want to face the fact that we often don't know the difference.

We are all children.

More Honesty, Less Irony

Irony is the package that truth is delivered in, so that it can be palpable to comprehension. Contrary to what people think, truth is actually pretty simple, but it's impossible to comprehend due to its simplicity, so people invented irony to tease it out. When truth is delivered with naked honesty, it is feared at best and disregarded at worst. So society is full of irony, which is to say, pretense, which is to say, lies in the guise of truth and truth in the guise of lies. Our intuitions are always an honest representation of ourselves, but adults in particular (far more than children) are contented to bury their intuitions under false pretense for the purposes of keeping up appearances. Adult society is built by honest conviction that is delivered and made palpable by lies, self-deprecating humor, sarcasm, and ironic twists of personal judgment to fit in with prevailing cultural standards. If society decides to castigate or lynch a group of people, the individuals within it are more inclined to support that lynching with their love of irony, sarcasm, self-deprecating humor, and misrepresented values, than they are with their honesty and truthful conviction to their gut.

Truthful conviction and honesty tells us that all people deserve respect unless they have personally done something that amounts to a forfeiture of that right by their own discretion alone. For instance, our honest, truthful, "heart of hearts" knows by pro-social evolution that to disrespect an individual on the stereotypes or heuristics of the class, race, sex, or creed they belong to (or are perceived as belonging to) is shameful. Our intuition directs us to value some version of an equality standard for all, and not solely base an individual's inclusion in that standard on the perceived class or "group" that an individual belongs to. For most non-sociopaths capable of shame, it seems unconscionable on the face of it to show disrespect to someone for a reason having nothing to do with that person's own character or actions, but to circumstances totally beyond that person's control. This is not a novel concept to most people, so we have every reason to assume there is at least some truth to it, but let's see how irony will cause a person to break those very same conventions in the name dishonest truth, often for humor's sake.

Irony in the broadest sense is a narrative device where a circumstance exists for which an unexpected result occurs with the property of contradicting or going against the meaning behind the circumstance. It is usually easier to depict than to define, for instance: when a child and an adult are competing, and the inexperienced child outwits the adult, it is an ironic situation because it is not expected that someone of smaller experience would outwit someone of larger experience. Adults find such joy in irony like this because they have more of an experience with social conventions and like to see something that challenges them or contradicts them from unexpected sources. Girls outwitting boys, for instance, is another common trope, even now when we should no longer consider a girl to be an "unexpected source," but such is the backwards way with irony. 

Adults use irony to accomplish the opposite of challenging convention though, and deliver the "unexpected truth" by confirming convention only so much as to kill it with kindness. This forms the basis of most deconstructionist, post-modern philosophy. For instance, by saying something like "children are better than adults by their savagery," there is an attempt to combine "superiority" with "savagery" (an unexpected pairing), and children (traditionally considered to be pure and inferior to adults), with the same, for the purpose of exposing the more intuitive truth that "adults are no better or worse than children." But why all that diversion when one could have just said: "adults are no better or worse than children?" It's because that truth is made more thought-worthy when it comes dressed in a subtle poetic quip involving lots of comparisons. Blatant statements of belief mean nothing to anyone beyond the church pew, but lies that cover up truths seem to really cause people to stop and reconsider their thoughts. That is just how the secular world prefers its truths. But by confirming something that one does not actually support, even with the intention of laying bare some truth about it, one is essentially dressing a truth in a lie, which is to say, lying.

So human beings can get away with making the most ludicrous and crass statements, cast misguided judgement, purposefully misrepresent where their values lie, and get away with it, as I have done at times, by calling it "sarcasm" in the pursuit of a higher truth, or by being humorous. But where do we draw the line before we've totally divorced our honest intuition from our outward dishonest personality? Do we get away with saying that "boys are stupid" so that we may appear ironic for saying it and therefore be "interpreted" as saying anything supportive of girls? "Boys are stupid" will never be a supportive statement for anyone. Do we get away with calling a particular boy "stupid" because of the circumstance of his sex (which he had nothing to do with)? Do we get away with advocating for the lynching of ethnic minorities just so we can feel sarcastic and witty enough to be espousing truth in furtherance of tolerance? "Lynch him in a back alley" will likewise never be a statement endorsing tolerance, no matter how ironic it is perceived to be. 

It is not that sarcasm this hurtful should be outright censored though, just that those who speak it should be regarded shamefully. It is shameful to say something that contradicts one's better judgement, whatever that judgement may be. If we have to assume that no one truth exists, but that each one of us has our own truth, the best we can do is be truthful to ourselves as best we can, and that is called direct honesty. The truth does hurt, which is why we invented irony--to soften it, to make it more palpable, to make it humorous, to add distractions so that we're not forced to accept it as much as we'd like to--but the truth is always the truth and it can't be twisted, even if one doesn't agree with it. As much as the truth hurts though, dishonesty hurts more. When you are being honest by saying "peace on earth," chances are, it was dishonesty that lead the first battle cry.

Saying "equality for all people," is the only way of truthfully conveying the message of "equality for all people," even if it sounds comically vague or naive on the bare surface like that--but that is what the truth is! The truth is naive. It is simple. You can not arrive at "equality for all people" if you're going around, cheekily saying "girls are better than boys," for instance, because you know that statement, when expressed categorically in relation to a whole group of people, is false, and therefore, a comic lie. It is a statement of devaluation toward one group and a superficial support of another (not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of circumstances neither child had any control over) against your better intuition. You know you are lying when you say it, so why don't you feel shameful? If you are saying the opposite of truth--a falsehood---and if you know that it is false, then you are lying.

Adults don't think of irony or sarcasm as lying because they know a deeper truth is attempting to be exposed with its phrasing, but they only arrive at that conclusion because they have adult brain capacities. Ask any child what a lie is, and they will tell you about the time they lied to get away with something they didn't want exposed. In our case, what we don't want exposed is the truth, and instead, favor a pretense of falsehoods, lies, and sarcasm. How does that not describe, in its entirety, all that the sarcastic, ironic, hypocritical, pretense and illusion that the adult social world is built on?

Who's Watching the Watchers?

Because of what the adult brain loses as it develops from adolescence, adulthood is not great. It is not qualitatively better or greater than adolescence by experience than adolescence is greater by innocence, or ignorance (as it were). The adolescent brain is simply fighting to express itself in a world governed by unbridled adult expression, for better and worse. By contrast, the adult brain is fighting itself in a world governed by its own self-imposed inhibitions, those learned by experience, and also for better and worse. So where do adults get the idea that they are qualified to judge the young?

The adolescent calculates the why not while the adult simply contents itself with knowing the why not. The adolescent tests its limits while the adult lives comfortably within them. The adolescent strives for a costly adventure as the adult settles for safe and clean complacency. The adolescent seizes life regardless of the consequences while the adult lives in a world of consequences and denies life. The teenage mind defies expectation while the adult mind defines it. When the teen mind defies life to its detriment, the adult mind defines it to the same extent. The adult is superior though for its longevity while the teen is superior for its aspiration--both have what the other lacks.

If you're an adult, and you find this characterization limiting, then you are experiencing the same effects of decadence (which is to say vanity) that limit the youth perspective. Characterizations of people on the basis of age are naturally limiting. The only difference of course is that these characterizations draw a line of equivocation between adults and adolescents (and children), while most adult heuristics in regards to young people do nothing but reinforce the so-called superiority of adults (in the active realms) and children (in the passive ones). All the truth in the world adds up to adults thinking in adult ways and framing non-adult situations with adult-centric perspectives. That's all there is to it. Truth is a function of power, and because adults are in power, their truth prevails. And yet, their truth about humility still applies to everyone.

In the name of humility, the justice system is often considered to be the sociological "parent" for adults. It's supposed to be the high-holy thing that judges adult behavior and punishes indiscretions in the rational world. It is however formed and created by adults, so one is left to wonder, who is watching the watchers? Who is judging adults in the manner in which adults judge the young (other than the young people themselves?)? Adults are given unbridled expression because they exist free of judgement half the time, and when they are being judged, they not only participate in, but create the system for which they are to be judged by. What child has that much authority over the judgement system when he or she is facing the scorn of adults? If only children could set the terms by which they could be judged by, because then they would have the same free terms that adults reserve for themselves. As it stands, adults are policing both themselves and children, so adult judgements go unchallenged in either case. 

It is entirely human for an adult to be taken by the decadence that is bestowed on them by culture, and there isn't one alive that doesn't think, in some way, that they are superior to young people. Adults don't need to be derided for their egotism any more than kids do for theirs, they simply need to be awakened and cut down to size so they may see themselves as the increasingly decrepit apes they are. None are so high and mighty that they should be beyond reproach, whether adults (in active realms) or children (in passive ones). Chances are, in the grandiosity of the cosmos, nothing an adult human says makes any real difference or carries any more universal a truth than the children who were once told "not to speak unless spoken to." Whoever said the adults could talk?

Pride in the Name of Love

Here in the United States, on third Monday of January, we celebrate the birthday of an inspirational man of peace, a courageous activist who forced change in a corrupt system, a preacher, an alleged conspirator against the US government, an eloquent orator for justice and brotherhood, and a tragic martyr for truth and understanding. In focusing on the man, it's easy to forget his message. The movement he began became the impetus for bringing the life of the disenfranchised to the average heart and mind from the streets of the south all the way to the congressional lobbies, and from there, all around the world.

Through him we came to understand that bigotry was the only thing keeping our corrupt bureaucracy from untangling and realigning itself to stay in keeping with our sentiments. We learned that fear, hatred, ignorance, and corruption should have no legislative excuse. The movement forced the change, but it was the man who taught us how to live within that change--that our moral obligation to one another in the moment trumps our obligation to tradition or regime.

As it is for race, gender, and creed, so should it also be for age, children not excluded. 

On a personal note, King was one of the main inspirations for me as a young teen struggling to untangle his own desires. He gave me the clarity for a brief moment in my temporary angst to see a different path for myself, out from the public school haze that I'd been cast under. Suddenly everything they'd been neglecting to tell me in it started to ring in clear through King's speeches, and it was at that moment, as never before, that I decided I wanted to be a force of good in the world too.

And that's why we celebrate this man. He could delliniate what is good and what is wrong so profoundly that it became impossible to misunderstand the work of a selfless, loving soul, and the passionate self-righteous excuse making of a blind demagogue. And that is why we should celebrate him, because he can still teach us the difference.

In taking a man's life, a bullet attempts to also kill his conviction, but only succeeds when he's not in possession of the truth. As assuredly as the truth will bring out the bullets on the man, it will also bring new life to his message in his death. What is evil, can not win.

"I was in close confrontation with the devils. I could see them face to face. I could see them feed upon their brother's face as the fowls of the air feed upon the dead meat of the earth. I can see everything that is [deadly] upon creation...arranged to assassinate those who speak the truth."

 - Peter Tosh

Thought-Stopping Cliches

Our typical human overhears the cultural media pulpit repetitively spouting thought-stopping cliches about predators day in and out, takes them at face value and then perhaps turns around and criticizes those who practice religion. There is no difference. If religion is said to become anxious at the idea of critical analysis and receives criticism for it, then our media pulpit should be spared no less the same. The only thing that is necessary to say to render null all arguments for justifying our opinions based on reason alone is wrapped up in the confused media-fed jargon of the expression, "predators targeting innocent children." No one can contest paranoia like this without looking like they support the "predators," so it becomes truth regardless of its truth.

"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."
(Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism 429)

Childhood innocence is a cultural designation for which there is no evidence--sure children exist inside a different developmental stage from adults, but there is no reason to believe they are any more "innocent," "pure," or "angelic" as a result than your average adult given their own developmental state. Another is the purely cultural detestation for "pedophilia," where ignorance has produced in the mainstream its 1 to 1 correlation with "child molestation." Such a 1 to 1 correlation has no evidence, and even runs counter to evidence suggesting that not all pedophiles necessarily commit the crimes of child molestation and possession of child porn. But put these two words together in the same sentence, "innocent child" and "pedophile," and all analysis stops. If you contest the jargon, you're in support of the perpetrator. In the past, such an ability to think beyond the words would doom your soul to hellfire, these days, it dooms our society to ignorance and illusion servitude.

The First Flash

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

The first flash of faith, they say, is always the strongest. And the same could be said about the first flash of social awareness. At the first instance when a young mind is coming to know the injustice in the world, when their reception of it is all consuming and most passionate, it is stifled. No, the world is no simple place, and young passion alone doesn't rectify injustice, but neither does the experienced complacency that condemns it on those grounds. Young passion is stigmatized, it is marginalized, because it is inexperienced. The powers that be like to view it as misguided and naive, the result of a sheltered individual just coming to terms with the world around them, feeling one way or the other about the injustice out there, and having no idea how the world actually works or the possible ramifications should their ambitions be realized. It is for this reason that youth passion is shot down.

The powers lay the claim that youth passion is naive, that its solutions to social injustice are uninformed and too simple. As often as this is the case though, youth passion does not have a monopoly on presupposing uninformed simplicity onto a complicated world. Simplicity is in saying things are too complicated to work toward a solution in, simplicity is in ignoring the plight of those obviously wronged by systematic injustice to save face before one's own, simplicity is in "bending the rules" to fit personal interests when one is tasked with serving the will of the people--these are all things "experienced" complacency (apathy) apologists cling to while condemning so-called "youth passion" as simple-minded. They know how the world works, alright, they are experienced in it--it just so happens that in their years of experience, they've learned how to make the system work for themselves, and are unwilling to give it up. That's what's really going on.

Show me a youth who has chosen to exercise his or her passion against such a system in anti-social or naive ways (terrorism, vandalism, violent protest, dramatics...etc.), and I will show you a case of an aged and crooked judge, a dirty cop, a corrupt politician--people who have chosen to exercise their "expertise" with the system in selfish and destructive ways. Who shall we trust more, then? The liberal with no brain or the conservative with no heart?

At least when the passionate youth speaks, they speak from the heart, they speak with passion in their convictions, no matter how naive they may sound, they are speaking what they perceive to be the truth. If they say that love conquers all, it is because they believe it. If they say universal platitudes, "peace must come," it is because they mean it. They say what they mean and mean what they say. The experienced mind has lost its passion because it is necessarily bogged down in the reality of life. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way things work. It does not say what it means or mean what it says because it knows what it is saying is probably untrue.

Why then should we trust it?

Diversions and Distractions

What gets society all up in a frenzy and what really matters are two different things. It seems like it was always like this. Society is so caught up in portraying the symbolic gesture of doing the right thing that they seemed to have forgotten completely how to do it. This is to say, society is distracted by the sentimental, sensational nature of heroism and the impulse to frame it inside some kind of digestible narrative, and can no longer (as a whole) just appreciate things or actions for what they are on the surface.

Whether we're caught up in the wrongness of burning the flag while ignoring the less viscerally arresting imagery of corporate imperialism, or caught up in the "sex beast" who looked at a child the wrong way while ignoring how society has been turning a blind eye to the treatment of black boys in education, we're distracted. We're not paying attention to the right things. We're distracted by the glamor of narrative and symbolism, by sensationalist media and sentimental hand-on-heart "oh dear"-isms, and for that it's getting harder to tell what really matters. What really matters is people and the planet, not how this blog or any pundit out there frames the goings on between those two things.

No matter how we feel about our adversaries, whether they be labeled "maggots" or "sex beasts," or "antichrists," it should never distract us from living and loving those around us for whom our allegiance and loyalty should be full. We shouldn't be ignoring the isolated crying child on the bustling city sidewalk to return to our private den that night and redirect our guilt and self-hate for inaction toward some overhyped convicted sex offender on TV caught entering a library. Who among us could possibly argue that this is a better use of those energies? Assist the crying child on the sidewalk, and forget the TV sex offender, and the world will be better for it.

Perhaps this is idealistic, but it's the truth.

The Boy King and the Giant

Everyone thinks that their side of an argument is the little man standing up victorious over the mightier adversary. Everyone believes that the one thing they have to guide them against their adversary to victory is truth. Indeed, even the big, mighty establishment itself thinks of itself as the underdog standing up to its oppressor, the general population. The simple truth of the matter is that there is no side that is mightier or weaker than another, and there is no side that claims the monopoly on truth, because there are hundreds more sides that also claim that same precious artifact.

Regardless of this, simply stating that one is in the possession of some truth, no matter how far fetched, is like painting a target on your back. People will incarcerate, shun, or even kill you simply for saying you hold the truth, even if you don't. If there's one thing true in the world, it's that those who hold onto their version of the truth with the strongest conviction are the ones going down at the hands of those who can't seem to grasp theirs very long.

When the outcome is unlikely, the prevailing puny is praised as being closer to the truth (such as the case with the boy king killing the giant in a single hit), but when the outcome is likely (as in the case of the outsider CL losing out to the child abuse entertainment industry), the prevailing powerhouse is practically worshiped for bringing the so-called truth into 100 million homes every night. Sometimes it seems society is more interested in perpetuating and glorifying those it casts as predators simply because they had the audacity to hurl that label at them to begin with. But of course, in their eyes they are just the meek David staring down the beast, a delusion brought on by endless repetition of the romantic sentimental typical plot. Sometimes it seems society is more interested in playing the constant hero than it is in actually doing what is right.