Subject:
|
Re: Who are we to judge?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:27:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > Most people aren't probably ready for self-rule, being sheep unable to think
> > for themselves. It is good for such people to have strong leaders spouting
> > empty rhetoric to help them in their times of trouble, otherwise they might
> > not know what to do with themselves.
>
> I don't often point out arrogance in others as I've very aware that I
> sometimes exhibit more than my own share of it.
>
> Not sure if you're pegging me as one of these sheep, although if you are I
> guess it doesn't bother me much, as I don't need you to validate me as a
> citizen of this country or a human being able to think for himself - nor, I
> doubt, does anyone else.
>
> I just wonder how many of those people you would name sheep have spent the
> last couple of weeks busting their asses trying to make a difference in NYC
> rather than flapping their gums in cyberspace about it, pumping themselves
> up and throwing snide remarks at their fellow "elite" debaters over such
> weighty concepts as right and wrong, murder and war, etc.
>
> Some of you guys (you probably included, Richard) obviously keep up with and
> know a LOT more about this foreign policy/international relations stuff than
> I do. I'm ok with that, and you're obviously pleased with it as it seems
> you believe it gives you some sort of elevated right to judge others and
> their opinions. We don't have any college professors here, do we? I've
> only encountered this level of arrogance among tenured profs before.
>
> Good to know, though, that anyone who isn't interested in seeing this whole
> mess in 256 shades of gray is just a simple-minded sheep who can't think for
> himself.
I think Mike's comments here demonstrate a vital tension in Western society,
and possibly all societies. One of the defining attributes of social living
is task specialisation: farmers, soldiers, leaders. An individual can have
many strings to their bow, but at any given time they will fill one
particular role.* In most contemporary nations the tendency is to extreme
specialisation, even in traditionally non-specialist fields like politics.
You train to do one thing and you learn to do it sufficiently well (or how
to get away with not doing it well enough), which is why there's room in the
world for both the blood and sweat of emergency workers and the expert
commentary of academics.
On the other hand we also live in democracies, which as I understand the
term means that we elect leaders who are theoretically answerable for their
actions. We elect individuals to act as our proxies in government. We assume
that
(1) citizens can tell how qualified an individual is to hold a political
position, and
(2) citizens understand the context of the decisions politicians will make.
Again, these responsibilities of the citizen are largely deferred to
specialist organisations. (1) is usually given over to political parties and
the media, while (2) relies on the media and politicians communication
through the media. Media broadly defined would include independent journals,
grassroots networks, internet newsgroups and non-government organisations,
but by and large I'm referring to the corporate-owned mass media of
television, newspapers and radio.
Okay so where am I going with all this? I think the current situation
_deserves_ to be seen in at least 256 shades of grey, if not millions of
colours at 1024x768. One of the reasons I believe it is so complex is
because I have made an effort to read a lot of background material -- an
effort made a lot easier by the excellent references provided in this forum
-- and I have the privilege of time and resources to digest more information
than the mass media provides.
Does that make me a better person than someone without that privilege? No.
Does it give me more votes than someone without that privilege? No.
Should it give me more votes than someone without that privilege? No.
Do I judge others for their priorities and circumstances? No.
Are my opinions more important than theirs? No.
Can I judge their opinions as less _informed_ than mine? Yes.
There's obviously years of discussion to be had on this topic, so I'll leave
it at that. But the short version is that media and politicians largely fail
in their responsibility to explain the world to the general public.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And there's more
than one way to skin a cat.
--DaveL
* Note that this holds for other species too, eg ants, bees, termites.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| You know, sometimes the mistaken reading is much funnier than the accurate one. (...) I had initially expected to see the asterisk after "skin a cat." My immediate response was "well, yes, but why would you *want* to?" ack, LFB (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| (...) I don't often point out arrogance in others as I've very aware that I sometimes exhibit more than my own share of it. Not sure if you're pegging me as one of these sheep, although if you are I guess it doesn't bother me much, as I don't need (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
