I'm reminded of a book I once read, named as the subject. Basically, the rethoric of reaction asserts that the status quo is "good" while whatever-new-thing is "evil".
Thomas Friedman doesn't notice that a genuine freethinker might benefit tremendously from seeking out peers on the internet. Whereas he might be kept ignorant and unstimulated (even persecuted) in normal everyday life (see Phenomenon with Travolta). Most societies, including Western ones, are repressive and intolerant of differenct ideas.
He also asserts that the Internet is more corrupting than say, the newspapers, TV, Bible or Koran. Yet the many people blindly following those media are rarely seen exercising caution, having already surrendered their moral judgement to third parties. If anything, Internet surfers know to be skeptical.
I feel his great mistake is blaming the internet scape goat for the blatant lack of education of the public, as well as some of the more insidius underlying tendencies of our self-righteous Western thinking. Take the new UN children's charter: here the USA is on the same team as the most fanatical Moslem nations in denying children the right to know about sex.
But such is the rethoric of reaction. It doesn't help us humans to embrace and deal with the multitude of changing circumstances of life. It only teaches us to fear and hate, and eventually run into greater problems than we would have, had we dealt with things as the arose. Reactionaries aren't dealing with life, they're bracing against it.
I have instant flashback to some days ago when A.J. from Userfriendly.org is harrassed by the inquisitors, who try to make him pay for his CDs more than once.
I mean, if I buy a book, I should be free to do with it what I please afterwards. That amazon helps me excercise this right is just a great service.
--Vad
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of a book I once read, named as the subject. Basically, the rethoric of reaction asserts that the status quo is "good" while whatever-new-thing is "evil".
Thomas Friedman doesn't notice that a genuine freethinker might benefit tremendously from seeking out peers on the internet. Whereas he might be kept ignorant and unstimulated (even persecuted) in normal everyday life (see Phenomenon with Travolta). Most societies, including Western ones, are repressive and intolerant of differenct ideas.
He also asserts that the Internet is more corrupting than say, the newspapers, TV, Bible or Koran. Yet the many people blindly following those media are rarely seen exercising caution, having already surrendered their moral judgement to third parties. If anything, Internet surfers know to be skeptical.
I feel his great mistake is blaming the internet scape goat for the blatant lack of education of the public, as well as some of the more insidius underlying tendencies of our self-righteous Western thinking. Take the new UN children's charter: here the USA is on the same team as the most fanatical Moslem nations in denying children the right to know about sex.
But such is the rethoric of reaction. It doesn't help us humans to embrace and deal with the multitude of changing circumstances of life. It only teaches us to fear and hate, and eventually run into greater problems than we would have, had we dealt with things as the arose. Reactionaries aren't dealing with life, they're bracing against it.
--Vad
I have instant flashback to some days ago when A.J. from Userfriendly.org is harrassed by the inquisitors, who try to make him pay for his CDs more than once. I mean, if I buy a book, I should be free to do with it what I please afterwards. That amazon helps me excercise this right is just a great service. --Vad