The most stupid thing that a rational man can do is to argue. But the peak of stupidity is to argue with a populist. Because his goal is not to discuss the matter but to be liked by the people like him and the crowd.
Suppose I am writing, “Let us not litter the sidewalks by throwing the cigarette butts on the ground.” It seems to be quite normal and rational call. But the populist finds a wonderful “counterargument” to it. He cannot say that littering the sidewalks is a good thing, but he knows how to use any theme to please the crowd. And in response to the call for not littering the sidewalks, he answers, “What about Shmays?” And if you mistakenly ask, how is Shmays associated with this, the populist will be in its element. “What do you mean that he is not associated with it, there is an atmosphere of impunity, the corruption has reached its enormous range, poverty, emigration,” and so on.
In other words, a ‘sonorous’ name is taken, which one way or another is associated with the defects in our country (mostly, justified), while the original content: keeping the streets clean, is moved to the second plan. And most importantly, it appears that the existence of Shmays somehow even justifies not only throwing cigarettes onto the pavement but also spitting and taking care of number one. Slightly paraphrasing Dostoevsky’s thought, we can say that if there is Shmays (or “Shmays-like characters”), then everything is allowed.
I do not know, maybe this is what we call a “trolling”, bringing all the themes to one point, but I heartily recommend intelligent people not to enter into such debates. Usually, I do not take part in them. Sometimes, however, my nerves give in and I begin explaining some things to the populists, and then I deeply regret my time lost.
Read also
We have two types of standard behavior. One type is the this-or-that degree of adaptation with certain manifestations of aggression and servility, starting from the “RPA grandmother” and ending with “Cheburashka-teachers” of the same party. It is, in all cases, the standard of minority. But there is also a standard of majority: to complain of everything, protest, “find fault with” and so on. The populists are working on this second standard, sometimes considering it the highest manifestation of courage and civic posture. Is it possible not to enter into these two standards? Perhaps, many people do not like it, but the problem is that there is no need to try to be liked by everyone.
So, dear friends, I keep saying that the cigarette butts should be thrown into the waste basket. Even if Shmays does not do it.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
