The Cellar - View Single Post

it · 09-15-2015, 04:08 PM

You know what terrifies me? That she's somehow right.

That in 30 years from now the idea that people need to be challenged by conflicting or disturbing points of view will be antiquated an unenlightened, thrown in the same bucket we've thrown racism and chauvinism and colonialism etc, overshadowed by new ideals and ethical interpretations that justify it all together in their own way, and yet we are missing on them in much the same way older generations missed on what we now take for granted. That in some way, this is just part of of society marching on.

I have seen people who are able to justify various stances that would be applicable here, and those justifications are not without merit.

One version of this is viewing the right to choose who is and isn't in your life as a rudimentary element of personal sovereignty. When pushed to extreme in the modern urban and online environments, means everyone is disposable, and if you have a conflicting view or narrative or understanding with someone, just find someone else instead. And yet it can still be justified - for disallowing or going against the ability to cut people off can be said to be supporting abuse. And yet when dynamics have one side and one narrative in one's mind, there also isn't much resistance for personal fairytales of good guys and bad guys... If so, how far of a leap it from that to a right to control the information you chose to expose yourself too?

Many people are now raised with that ability at the tip of their hands...

09-15-2015, 04:08 PM	#7
it Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 772	You know what terrifies me? That she's somehow right. That in 30 years from now the idea that people need to be challenged by conflicting or disturbing points of view will be antiquated an unenlightened, thrown in the same bucket we've thrown racism and chauvinism and colonialism etc, overshadowed by new ideals and ethical interpretations that justify it all together in their own way, and yet we are missing on them in much the same way older generations missed on what we now take for granted. That in some way, this is just part of of society marching on. I have seen people who are able to justify various stances that would be applicable here, and those justifications are not without merit. One version of this is viewing the right to choose who is and isn't in your life as a rudimentary element of personal sovereignty. When pushed to extreme in the modern urban and online environments, means everyone is disposable, and if you have a conflicting view or narrative or understanding with someone, just find someone else instead. And yet it can still be justified - for disallowing or going against the ability to cut people off can be said to be supporting abuse. And yet when dynamics have one side and one narrative in one's mind, there also isn't much resistance for personal fairytales of good guys and bad guys... If so, how far of a leap it from that to a right to control the information you chose to expose yourself too? Many people are now raised with that ability at the tip of their hands...