Breaking through as a voice on this vehicle is the result of being media savvy. Having an intelligent point of view and persistence. I am just making this shit up. The internet is an anthill, we are all but tiny vessels, crawling about trying to be seen. When we are it is often by a toad. A toad with a high opinion of himself who wants you to continue to toil in obscurity because he sees your clear, intelligent writing, as morally corrupt. Something stupid that is there to get the author attention. So he posts a comment.
Being a quality reader is more important than being a quality writer in this form of communication. An intelligent reader can interpret information that is brought through carefully deciphering whatever manner the information is presented in. It does not work in reverse. A fool gains no wisdom from reading it.
The anthill has a vastly disparate population in terms of the innate qualities the ants possess. There are cultural differences and personal choices that impact a person's judgment. Personal choices are glorified and demonized in a way that presents a cultural bind. Do not judge people because of their personal choices/ It is just a personal choice. This is a reasonable person's tempered view of prejudice: it is also a reduction to a dispassionate and un-thrilling point of view. To be fair you must care less, could be the logical summation of this bind we are repeatedly exposed to by the toads who lurk in the anthill.
William F Buckley advocated literacy exams for the right to vote. He made the assertion that people who had the capacity to think reasonably made the best citizens. The issue that this conflicts with is equality. It does not eliminate the truth of the distinction about quality of intellects. The right to speak and voice one's opinion on the internet is seen now as a universal right. It is prejudice that threatens our freedom and happiness. There is a huge bind in these thoughts. Everywhere I go in the anthill there are warnings against prejudice and slander. I want to complain about someone, and I worry, if I will be considered abusive for making my comment. I look at other people's work, and so much of it is comforting and sort of contented looking. No one is ever insulted, or spoken of in anyway, but gentle loving acceptance. It fills me with horror because of it's unreal appearance.
The anthill is sectioned and parsed everywhere. The specific criteria set by the management must be adhered to to maintain order and make the anthill a pleasant place to be. Learn the rules and have the rules in your thoughts as you operate within the system. The toads of course understand the rules with their toad minds. They spend useful energy enforcing the rules in the manner a toad understands them to be meant. I am becoming accustomed to complaints about the rules and fairness if I should ever make a point.
I hope the myth of a polarized political spectrum is somehow overcome. Politics have been divided along left and right and most people would not even know what the symbolism means. They would not know that it was symbolism. They do however believe that left and right are reality and they mean something that determines a person's value and values. The symbols of left and right occurred during the French Revolution when seating in a fractious meeting to establish a government placed liberals on the left and conservatives on the right.
The shallowness and disunity of practically everyone in this left/right polarization is banality in surreal proportions. Could they name a conservative? Could they name a liberal? How deeply could they hold any conversation on political theory? Neither side appears to have any sort of literacy requirement in its plans. They follow politics as though it were a sporting event and they are on a team. They do not need to understand politics because they are interested in other things. They know that the other team is stupid. They would screw things up and make life harder for them. What more do you need to know?
Or maybe they are political junkies. They watch the news all the time and have opinions about all the issues that are based on watching everything they have the opportunity to access in the hours of the day. They have a vast knowledge of history and can write intelligently and vote. This is a better situation but alas the person could still be wrong or too narrow to allow another to have their own opinion. Practicing free speech and expression is hard for anyone who cares about anything. It is easy for Larry Flynt. Free speech is protected by our acceptance of the brutality of sexual exploitation. Do not try to take away our free speech by passing laws to punish abusive pornographers. Do not make value judgments about the influence that seeing an artistic expression of someone being abused will cause in a viewer. Arguing that seeing these things will cause someone to go out and do it is a false assumption. A ban on the image would not be able to protect speech because Shakespeare would be included as a depiction of these same acts and the laws would be unworkable. I do not want anyone telling me what I can think about.
Obscenity has been given over to communities in our system. That means that a community can allow it or ban it through democratic means on a local level. That is probably where it will stay. People who argue for more permissiveness advocate cruelty that is allowed in countries where life is cheap. They are good suspects for anyone wishing to expose persons who are exploiting minors for sex. People who want to enforce standards of sexual propriety on everyone in society do exist. They are usually well represented in a person's life as mothers and fathers. If someone should get past that obstacle and have independence in those matters he/she will have to avoid commitments with partners who will impose some variation of the order upon them again. They can get out their frustration writing about sexual freedom and fairness.
There is a very narrow opening at the peak of the anthill. It is the goal of every ant who wishes to be seen to stand on the tip and be heard. Everyone has his own hill. It is a technological conundrum to have everyone speak and everyone hear. The toads are helping to suppress the rational ants by croaking foul when they provide different views or wish to make a person accountable with new and unproven accusations at a personal level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment