And I did
I rarely leave comments on other blogs, not even under duress, but this once I did, because, there was a need to say some pertinent things.
The issue concerned people who I consider friends from Social Media, I love my friends, and I cannot bear to see them warring in public, at the same time, I am rarely sentimental about my desire to have people cut it out and return to a modicum of peace.
I hope that when I
view matters brought to my attention, I am able to see things sometimes quite
radically different from others, it is a matter of perspective and there are
many narratives to any situation all depending on where we observe things.
The spirit of gratitude
Like a popular
author once said, we should be careful of the single story, and I rarely
reiterate the story told by others if there is another angle of approach.
Broadly, this issue
concerned charity, opinion, confrontation, offence, recalcitrance and
opportunity for vituperation in the aftermath.
My view of charity
is simple; there is only one valid response, it is gratitude. For they who
bring succour and respite are angels in disguise for that time of need.
That angels
displaying human nature can later on turn out to be obnoxious does not obviate
the good previously done, its value for that time, place and setting is
immeasurable.
The conflicts of gratitude
Demands can be made by the generous to serve interests inimical to the views of the recipient, but it is for the latter to adapt with reserve, circumspection and wisdom, it tests the patience and resolve. It is not beyond the capacity of all to exercise such.
We all have opinions, but the better part of valour is knowing how to make forceful points without alienating a source of goodwill. Goodwill should not present a sense of enslavement, and it is reprehensible for those who have done a turn of good to make unreasonable demands of those they have helped.
The fundamental,
much as it is difficult to understand is that the act of generosity is meant to
attract commensurate gratitude. There is no time limit to the expression of
gratitude whilst it can accommodate the expression of truth with moderation,
consideration and circumspection, which should not contemn the deeds of those
who have visited with an outstretched hand.
No hypocrites with full disclosure
That said; there is
a wider and broader issue when it comes to having opinions and views you want
to share. There is no restriction on the freedom of expression but it is
hypocritical to posit forcefully on issues where you have once been a
beneficiary of a related cause without declaring an interest.
It is called “Full
Disclosure.” This allows people to understand that you have an interest as you have a strong viewpoint, and whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot
question your honesty.
There is a reason why honesty is the best policy, because with it comes transparency, clarity, openness, fairness and truth.
The hypocrite has no refuge
In my opinion, the best way to tackle a festering problem is to determine its root cause, and there is no doubt in my mind that the absence of full disclosure in an original opinion opens that person to the excoriating rebuke of hypocrisy. The form criticism for hypocrisy could take varies, but we would be naïve to think there are parameters of engagement when it comes to condemning hypocrisy – no, there are none.
When seen in that
context, it is easy to apportion blame, but it is hoped that people
would engage to ameliorate the situation, albeit in the public space.
In closing, I would
say, never sequester your freedom of expression, but if you have an interest in
the matter or have been a beneficiary of the system that you have a strong opinion
about, err on the side of full disclosure and save yourself the ridicule of
being called out as a hypocrite.
