It's not that Deep

Yes, it is

Last week, I rumbled on about anti-intellectualism and how it's on the rise. Well I'm back again, I'm that committed. Also, it was while I was reading through what I had written that I figured that I had left some stuff out. That's what rumbling will do, new thoughts will replace old thoughts and somehow make an appearance. I need to organise my thoughts better. I'll add to the list of things including my room.

"It's not that deep" is something you have probably heard when you or someone else is expressing a critical thought and explanation about something.
I referenced the blue curtains in my last post and if anyone didn't understand that one. It's a meme that says the blue curtains were just blue and did not symbolise anything. It's mainly a dig to literature scholars. I obviously take offence for many reasons.
First being, symbolism is a technique in Literature and no good writer is going to miss the chance to use it especially in a subtle yet masterful manner.
Secondly, unless it changes the meaning and plot of the story, there's no harm done. If anything it adds to the allure of the story and brings more discussion.

So why, pray tell, would that bother anyone?

Why is a discussion about a movie, book or song met with such a statement? Truth is no one creates in a vacuum. For instance, it's rumoured that at the time of writing his numerous tragedies, Shakespeare had lost a child. Would it be wrong to contextualise that while discussing his work?

When it comes to criticisms of personal choices and experiences, cultural and societal norms, and whatever else, we should accept it to be done. Rather than rub it off as not deep, take a page from the Christian book and test the spirits.
In a time, where personal freedoms are being stripped away, with countless genocides, everything is that deep.
Is some discourse tiring and unhelpful? Yes, but that only means we should discuss why it's unhelpful not throw it away.

Unfortunately, many of us are not in position to "turn our brains off". That's a luxury we cannot afford at the moment. I don't think we ever could. It's very tiring to always be on alert, to recognise the subtle and yet dangerous narratives that creep in and root themselves in our midst but yet we must remain at tension. Otherwise what's the alternative?
When that American Eagle "my genes are blue" ad came out and there was backlash (deserved btw), I went down a rabbit hole on how much ads have infiltrated our daily lives and oh my God. Do you know that the popular belief that an engagement ring is supposed to cost a three months salary came from an ad of a diamond company in the 1930s? I had heard of it but got contextual proof of it. It's now a societal norm born out of an ad.

It's things like this that I will never let anyone dissuade me from calling out language undertones. For instance, a media house publishing something with "10 year old woman" should not be allowed to stand. The implications of such statements is way bigger than we want to believe. It's a deliberate act and yes it is that deep and should be treated as such.

Why am I committed to this? It's honestly because language matters. What is said, why it is said and, how it is said matters a great deal. “Yes, the man did not say that he hated black people, he just said he'd not trust a black pilot would be qualified. How does that make him racist?” So many are counting on us not seeing it as "deep" enough to talk about. I'm willing to annoy them.

As an ethical hater, I'll read everything as far as my eyes let me (even if they don't, I'll read), write and talk to counter and cross check everything. I dare anyone to tell me how it isn't deep.