A write-up by Samyak Shah
Fair-weather friend (adj.) A person who changes loyalty based on whether or not something is succeeding; often used to describe change of stances to go with the current popular sentiment or someone who wavers on their opinions.
"What we often forget is that all that we know is not all that there is"
The world exists outside the world of black and white because the categorizations are the extremes in a world that is majoring in averages. Talking about 'grey' brings forth the highlight that is 'living in the era of easy access and scrutiny' where the pressure of maintaining one particular stance is paramount because everybody assumes that what one says is what they'll keep saying forever, which is far from the truth, but because 'reputation' is to be taken care of, many fall into the trap of following their words sometimes just for the sake of it.
Collectively, it seems that we have forgotten to differentiate between something that is wrong and something that is bottomline unacceptable. There seems to be a decline in the existence of the concept of 'grey area' with its position being snatched away by a seemingly negative-impressioned 'hypocrisy'.
What if I told you that it's okay to take back your words and still be considered as a responsible individual in the eyes of others, and more importantly, in your own eyes? What? Sounds unreal to you? Why? Ah! I see; where's that validation, sympathy and most importantly the fear of getting bashed publicly and backlash for going back on your words. It seems that the binary ideology took you too far in your over-thinking, with additional credits to mob justice and approval stamp for 'stepping back' being \considered a crime of some sort now. You're neither fully guilty, nor fully innocent, you're somewhere in the middle because you screwed up and so did others; it's just that not everyone has the kahones to admit 'I believe that I no longer support what I previously used to, so I'm taking the words back. No harsh feelings' and why would anyone have the kahones, when despite actions being louder than words, your words are twisted into a trap for you.
What if I told you that it's okay to be believing and supporting both sides of the arguments equally and being that fair-weather friend, there's nothing obviously wrong in it since everyone would love to be on the winning side, and also because it saves you the pain of explaining why you might be opposing something. Convenient, right? Almost! That's because fair-weather friends aren't exactly respected (for obvious reasons but) majorly because they seem to be unreliable as they switch sides at the drop of the hat, but in a time where the lines between extremes is getting blurred, what's the harm if a person believes in the ideology of both sides and chooses to stay where (s)he finds it better? NO! Not permissible because what's a person that doesn't face the consequences of their actions, right? Most certainly, and that is what brings it to a point where one needs to ask: What if one doesn't take a significant action? Reaction is what makes consequences and a reaction is in response to the action, so what if action itself is not taken, keeping in mind that consequences may/may not be favourable? Escapist much?
There's always more than meets the eye, but what if there's a refusal to see what's hidden?
"Curiosity killed the cat or probably just lack of interest and attention did, who's to know? Accept what you feel is right, everyone's truth is different"
