Recently I read an article where one person accused another of being rude and harsh in their past. the person on the receiving end of the accusation was unable to respond to it. so ultimately, a proclamation is made about someone that is a one-sided opinion that leaves the recipient besmirched without recourse. there is no consideration given as to whether the statement is true or not. if it is true, there is no actual explanation given as to the facts that may have preceded the accusation (how many times was the person rude, how were they rude, were they rude or was it simply interpreted as rude because they did something or said something that wasn’t liked, were they simply stating their mind, was their behaviour/action/statement a response to some incident that occurred in the past that the accuser has not made us aware of). all we get is a one-sided view and that one-sided view portrays the accuser as unjustly affronted (because they are so good and pure) by an accused who is wicked, cold and heartless. no defence is allowed or sought. no forgiveness is extended. simply accusation and judgement. leaves me wondering, who was the rude and harsh and heartless one in this transaction really?  whose character is really being put on show as the aggressor? the accuser or the accused? but then, are we not all guilty when we all remain silent? are we not all taking the easy side, when no one is challenged?