For all the exposure that da Pinoys have to not only Western culture, but other Asian cultures, you would think that some of their more creative aspects, such as literary devices, would have rubbed off on them. Yet no, there remains a sizable part of the Pinoy population who remain imprisoned by their “heritage of smallness”, the inability to see the bigger picture, and their predilection towards finding offense in everything that they come across.
One such striking example we have recently come across is that of a commentator, by the name of “jong” from the Filipino Freethinkers, who made much ado about nothing in this portion of Ilda’s most recent write-up:
In the same manner, it is easy to judge Philippine President Benigno Simeon â€œBSâ€ Aquino by the way he treats his political enemies particularly former President and Pampanga Congresswoman, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA).
Commentator jong regarded the above statement as “tantamount to name calling”, and that it seems out of place with the finer points established in the article.
So how do ambiguity and lack of intent fit in?
It is clear and evident that BS represents the initials of our President’s first name. Somewhere along the line, our “dear leader”, developed an ability to spout statements and to do actions within the scope of his presidency that ultimately amounted to bullsh*t. So put them together, BS Aquino can mean Benigno Simeon Aquino, and/or Bullsh*t Aquino.
The thing with the “BS” moniker is that it is an acronym which is open to multiple interpretations. In short, it is ambiguous. The author did not exactly give any reason for wanting to use BS, not that she has to; it’s a literary device! Therefore, since the use of the acronym is ambiguous, it is impossible to definitively glean or infer exactly what the intent of the author was in using BS. In short, there is lack of intent/motive.
Ambiguous statements are useful when an author desires that the readers draw their own conclusions from the context. If one can noisily claim that the author’s intention was to emphasize the “bullsh*t” definition, then that’s the bias of the reader, not the author. The reader has no right to claim that that was the intention of the author because:
1) He/she didn’t write the article
2) He/she gravitated towards his/her own biases, but blamed the author for putting it in his/her head
What exactly is difficult about taking statements at face value anyway? Kind of hard to grasp for a Pinoy mind that chooses to judge and/or suspect instead one that seeks to understand or just accept, isn’t it?
Perhaps, if jong had asked what Ilda’s intentions were in using BS instead of telling her outright what he thought it was, then this “debate” would not have occurred.
If you claim to be free from the dogmatic thinking of religion yet you cannot overcome the inborn Pinoy predilection toward judgmental thinking, paranoia and pettiness, then exactly what is your thinking free from?!
No wonder our country remains Asia’s basket case. Because we imprison ourselves with such “small” and “unimaginative” thinking, we remain unable to “move on” while we’re being left behind by other people who didn’t “sweat the small stuff”.
- Things of the past - November 30, 2018
- The difference between Duterte’s words and the Opposition’s - October 31, 2018
- Why are Filipinos reluctant to call wrongdoing out? - September 30, 2018
- Going around in circles - August 31, 2018
- Resurgence, relevance, and regard for the future, all in the SONA - July 31, 2018