It is the basher/oppressor who in the end felt being bashed and oppressed. Nabaligtad (turned the other way around).

The victim of oppression here is one whose new job is home-based. He is finishing an outsourced job on a contract with another. In their town away from cities, he is said to be the only one who is earning by home-based servicing known only to his friends but unknown to many in their community including most of his relatives.

The mud-slinger/basher, because of being illogical, turned out to be the one who protested the person having been bashed when the latter confronted the former.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s the issue? the problem?

 

One relative of him was very inquisitive. The relative asked the housemate of the home-based oppressed about what the oppressed has been into, his job, his social life, and leisure life. The housemate said that the oppressed is very busy with his home-based outsourcing job. But the relative sounded questioning, “What home-based are you talking about? Hmmm!” (tongue-in-cheek). By the way, tongue-in-cheek is an English idiomatic expression that means in Filipino “may pagdududa,” “may pang-uyam,” “may pang-i-inis,” and “hindi kumbinsido.” The relative went on to comment with judgmental criticisms saying that the oppressed “. . . is being weird, unsociable, not outgoing with friends, not friendly, and good for nothing.” The housemate reported to the oppressed the below-the-belt criticism. All along, another friend reported to the oppressed that the brother of this relative was spreading tsimis (gossip and rumor) telling many people that the oppressed is good for nothing, weird, unsociable, not outgoing with friends, and not friendly — the same judgmental criticisms that the first relative has said to the housemate about the oppressed. It was proven by some friends of the oppressed that the two brothers (relatives of the oppressed) have really been spreading such rumor against the oppressed. So, the next days and for several times, the oppressed confronted the first relative. He did not poke his finger into the face of the relative. He only said to the relative to stop spreading the rumor. But later that day after the confrontation, the first relative posted in his Facebook account the following: “Even though we’re blood related, I still forgive you. It’s okay, but next time, I will never let you point your finger in front of my face again. I thought you suppose (sic) to be a good example but you’re acting ignorant, immature, and dominant. Not to mention you’re egotist.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAY IT RIGHT LOGICALLY brings the issue to light:

The relative’s defense mechanism

The first relative’s assertion that the oppressed pointed a finger in front of his (the former) face is an invention of a scene by the relative being merely an appeal to emotion. He invented it because he just wanted to gain sympathy from those who have come to get aware of the issue between him and the oppressed, his relative. He got embarrassed because he was confronted and he was anxious that this incident would come to the knowledge of the housemate and her friends that are also the relative’s friends; that’s simply why.

Who is the one ignorant?

He alleged the oppressed to be ignorant and yet he was the one ignorant for the fact that he spread rumor of the oppressed’s being weird, confined to his house, and would not come out to socialize, good for nothing, not outgoing with friends, and unfriendly without discovering first that the reason why the oppressed is confined to his house and such and such is that he is working home-based which fact that the relative did not know.

Who is the one immature?

He alleged the oppressed to be immature yet his jumping into a judgment against the oppressed is the very sign of his own immaturity, much to the fact that his victim is his very own relative.

The relative alleged the oppressed to be dominant (dominante daw!)

He alleged the oppressed to be dominant. Okay, it cannot be avoided that the oppressed may have turned or appeared to be dominant. But it was because of the oppressed’s emotion being the one who was victimized by gossip — the trouble having been started by the relative.

How did the oppressed come to be an egotist?

He said the victim was an egotist. Uhum! Let’s see definition first? Egotist means one who is bent on or who enjoys talking too much of himself, usually to brag. Now how come the relative is accusing the victim to be an egotist when in fact his (the former) items of rumor or gossip point to his allegation that the oppressed is being kept to himself, unsociable,and not having many friends? Can someone be an egotist when he confronted another fellow because that rumoring fellow talked about the oppressed being the exact opposite of an egotist? If it is the oppressed that is an egotist, why is it that this relative is talking about the oppressed being weird, confined to his house, unsociable, not outgoing with friends, etc? You cannot be an egotist if you do not socialize. You cannot be an egotist if you just confine yourself to your house. You cannot be an egotist if you do not have many friends to tell yourself on. Because an egotist talks a lot to likewise a lot of people.

Tingnan ninyo ang kalokohan ng mga tsismoso (see how nutty the gossipers are)

Tingnan ninyo ang kalokohan talaga ng mga gossipers – they would accuse you of what you are not, back when he was not yet confronted! When confronted, you are now again what you are not. That’s stupidity! Now who is being immature, ignorant, egotist, and not a good example? Can you pinpoint now?

Air your grievance in this forum. We in this site forum and any advocating reader will help one another so that we may detect the illogical, trap the inconsistency; let you stand your ground, hold your oppressor back, debunk your basher, and, tune things straight, fine and upfront.