Charot!

“Thank God for a man who makes up his mind,” said M once to James Bond. But perhaps the novel, Moonraker, was written at a time when men were men.

For in today’s liberal progressive environment where men are to be emasculated and sentimentality trumps reason, that manly certitude previously admirable is now considered a matter for contempt.

As pointed out here previously (“The coming crisis: the womanization of men,” 2018), “One suspects that the progressive hatred towards men have less to do with the patriarchy than it is to do with virtue. ‘Virtue,’ from the Latin virtus, was derived from vir, which is the Roman word for ‘man.’

“To say ‘virtue’ is thus to refer to the ‘excellent qualities of men, including physical strength, valorous conduct, and moral rectitude’ (see The Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories).”

“In short, this attack on men is but a variation of the progressive push for relativism, of rejecting objective moral standards, and the doing away of traditional values. It is essentially to pull apart what made us a society.”

This needs reiteration in light of this month’s most popular word: charot.

The origins of “charot” are as silly, vapid, and idiotic as the word itself. It’s sub-culture slang for (so they say) “joke only.” But really the “joke” part is a lie.

Many who use “charot” don’t really mean it as a joke. Forget for now that dictum that “jokes are half-truths,” a thought too subtle for those peopling the subject matter herein.

Like that equally stupid “my bad” (an unashamed non-apology disguised as an apology), “charot” represents boring uncertainty, a boring inability to commit, a boring and unexciting desire but without the backbone, courage, and intelligence to possess.

Take a sample of charot’s usage: “crush kita, charot!,” “bobo ka, charot!,” “ilibre mo ko dinner, charot!” The person saying this is oft focused on the reaction, deciphering if the words were positively received. “Charot” is the escape route in case of the opposite.

“Charot” is not mere kidding around. There is an agenda hidden behind it not found in the ordinary jostling of friends. The proof is the reaction of charot’s utterer: hostility or sullenness when the supposed joke proffered is rejected or (worse) not taken seriously.

Get Real Philippines’ “benign0” correctly identifies “charot” as “a disturbing symptom of a deeper malaise” (“The word ‘charot’ reflects Philippine society’s cowardly COP-OUT culture,” October 2019).

Indeed: “Why say something if you don’t intend to mean it? That, in essence, is the dishonest underpinnings of Charot ��ܱ��ٳܰ���.”

Similarly, he traces charot to the inability to commit, to make a stand for the declaration made: “This has something to do with the one-dimensional thinking of people who are sub-educated or lack exposure to cultural diversity.”

Socmed commentator Michelle Tolledo, researching for her masters degree in guidance and counselling, found that “more attractive individuals are viewed as more knowledgeable and more persuasive, and are more likely to be sought out by others for political information. In addition, more attractive individuals (even the relatively uninformed) are more likely to report attempting to persuade others” (citing Palmer and Peterson, “Halo Effects and the Attractiveness Premium in Perceptions of Political Expertise,” 2015).

This is relevant as assuredness and confidence in oneself and what one knows is an important component for social discourse. We should also add “social trust.”

Yet “charot,” as “benign0” points out, makes it “hard conversing with people who are incapable of taking even themselves seriously.”

Fairly similar are those beginning their declarations with “I’m not a lawyer (or doctor, economist, soldier, theologian, etc.) but…,” then pontificates exhaustively on a technical subject he knows nothing about. If confronted with the inevitable error, then the equally inevitable defensive response comes: “Well, I’m not a lawyer, etc.”

But what is the point of uttering personal circumstances at all? An opinion is valid (or not) regardless of credentials. Otherwise, it falls into an ad hominem fallacy.

If one wants to speak up and be heard, it means strongly believing in the merit of that which is to be said after thoughtful study and deliberation. If found wrong, one just maturely acknowledges the mistake and moves on.

Otherwise, just shut up.

“Charot,” “my bad,” “I’m not a lawyer but…” are all flakey cop-outs, discourse stoppers, a cowardly rejection of responsibility. They are a disrespectful and vulgar use of one’s freedom of expression.

Society cannot be centered on one’s feelings alone. For society to function, all of us need to take responsibility for what we say or do. This means studying and thinking first before speaking or acting.

Like any freedom, its employment should be judicious: just because you have the right to speak doesn’t necessarily mean you should.

If one has to utter “charot,” then the wiser course is silence. Speak later when you are prepared to stand by what you say.

All will be the better for it.

Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

Twitter @jemygatdula