“Normality” post COVID-19

What ever was ‘normal’? It will more then likely depend on your definition of the word, but typically it meant whatever was happening most regularly. For example,  we all know that it is not normal from a health or even human perspective to be overweight but as society has become more psychologically reliant on food and we now have such a high percentage of our pollination being overweight THIS is considered normal.

So, normal for some was affluence, even avarice and without care or concern of others, for some it was abject poverty and disrepair, yet for many of us it was on the scale in between these two extremes.

So should we even be contemplating returning to the old normal? No!

Thinking about returning to an old normal would be a complete waste of time and energy. It would be like trying to turn back time. Things HAVE changed, attitudes have changed, along with fear and anxiety as will as the opportunities that have appeared and the lessons we have learnt – as individuals, groups, cultures and as humanity.

Humans have culturally evolved to acquire knowledge and beliefs through copying others. Although advances in science, religion and society is usually by invention (by looking at the evidence and deciding for ourselves), few people are inclined to this way of thinking, much of the time these same people are ostracised until the majority eventually realise “oh-ah that’s a good idea”.

Plus, we cannot rely on the misinformation and disinformation drafted and distributed by those with a political or self-financial agenda (the trick here is: if you start saying “oh its the XXXX, who are being political, not my team” then you ARE being seduced and deluded). And this is why the “news” can also have such a negative affect on each of us and all of us. Try this to see whether you are like most people or one of the enlightened, intuitive ones: part one – turn on your favourite news channel and then try to DISAGREE with everything they present, part two – now turn on a channel you actually dislike and try to find a way to AGREE with everything they present.

The critical question here is, are you able to use critical thinking and decipher what is actually news (information) form BOTH channels or do you struggle and go back to preferring your original channel because it supports/reinforces your perception of the world without thought or consideration?

Now back to the point, Normality. So the challenge is to make the New Normal better than it was. Keep that which did work for our (humanity’s) benefit and let go of that which added no value or was detrimental. This is an opportunity that only comes around after a major catastrophe, so we need to make the most of  THIS opportunity and not squander it, for we certainly do not want another catastrophe.

Nearly every century there has been a major event that changed the way humanity behaved and progressed – sometimes this was a regression (backwards) as with the ‘Dark Ages” beginning around the 5th century. It is now OUR time to move forward, learn the lessons and become better at being human.

This challenge for the “new”  will rely of ALL of us to step up. Are you up for the challenge or will you sit back, look back and wait for someone else to decide your fate.

 

Other light reading. Some of which I agree with, some not, some is just information:

“PC” stopping you from speaking your mind?

Don’t feel bad, there are a LOT of people who say they cannot speak their mind or give their support for others who, although speaking their mind, are keeping it restrained. Keep reading, I will explain that this is not really the case, free speech is ALIVE and WELL, we just need to know what PC is and what it cannot do.

To understand PC, we go back to the beginning. It was first mentioned around 1917 during the Communist takeover of Russia and used to maintain adherence to the “Party Line’ – not a good start. Not much more was heard of it until the 1970’s.  The meaning at that time, was that a person being “PC” had an understanding of how their actions and words may affect people who were vulnerable to discrimination or could be disadvantaged. In other words, it was about being mature enough to know when and if, you were causing harm to others.

This term was very quickly hijacked by political parties/groups, using it as a tactic, a rallying call by NOT clearly handing out insults, degrading comments and pejorative statements against disadvantaged people, groups or even their political rivals – but by half truths and truncated statements alluding to the same, thus by using half statements only, they let their audience fill the gaps. This was, and very much still is, a powerful tool in the hands of a politician – as it is the audience who convinces themselves of their righteousness.

And then there are others who think it is a tactic they can also use: “I am not free to state my mind because of PC gone wrong” is just another way of saying one of two things (or both): “I have no real basis for my argument” OR “I am a real bigoted A-hole and want to say stupid stuff but don’t want the criticism”. Either way, it’s a ruse.

So, back to whether PC will actually stifle anyone from speaking their mind. The argument that PC prevents freedom of speech is flawed, everyone – in Australia and similar countries – has a right to say what they feel, free speech also gives others the right to have alternative views. What freedom of speech does not provide is the right to dehumanise, abuse or debase those who are unable or incapable of defending themselves in an equal manner.

Therefore, speak your mind openly and freely in a considered and mature way, remembering that as you have free reign to do this, others must be given the same consideration AND they are also very much within their rights to call anyone and everyone out when the protocols and dignity of free speech are being abused.