"I'll bet my right testicle that my late granddad didn't fight in the war for this country 70 years ago so that idiots of later times could whore---"
This starting sentence of a blog post, titled "
About the people who ruin this country", caught my attention on a late night Facebook link clicking spree. Or maybe it wasn't the sentence alone, but the picture of the blogger. I recommend you
click on the link now, if you didn't already.
Now excuse me for my stereotypical thinking, but someone who looks like that using language like above makes me intrigued. The post in itself was about the environmental mishaps of the Finnish political scene, and to be fair, from a point of view I wouldn't first connect to a middle-aged man in a suit. In fact, it rang quite a few bells.
After a bit of more clicking, it turns out that it's not really him, but a younger chap who would "look the part" behind the contents of the blog post. Reasoning for using a fake image?
Being taken seriously. Would the post have created a serious, well-argumented discussion in the comments from people all over the society on a political portal if the picture would have been of a 20-something guy on a beach in Goa with a guitar?
Is it in what is said or who says it?
I have dreadlocks. And tattoos. I can't walk in heels. I'm also an all A's student and I've bagged a few European PR awards. Yet, when I first turn up to a "serious" event, I get looks. I don't look the part, especially in London, but hopefully I'll be the part if given a chance. It's just about who is willing to even look behind the looks - isn't it about 3 seconds that we have to make a first impression? And we all know how easy it is to change those.
Perhaps that's the beauty of the world wide wonderful. Anyone can be an expert. Identity theft aside, is internet by making people faceless actually making us pay more attention to what is said than who is saying it? Or is it [still] a fake it till you make it -sort of a truth that's out there?