Devil's Advocate Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Anything that smacks of collective action - including public moralizing - is anathema. The 'power' of the media is such that it's become a news-influencer as much as a newsreporter, simply by appealing to the sanctimonious majority under the guise of 'freedom of speech'. Fire, shun, picket or boycott whomever you want, but as an individual, not as an organisation or whatever - and preferably from information independently found, not broadcast by media. 1st off, thanks for introducing me to a new word, anathema, and I agree with your observation that public moralizing tends to be anathematic. I can imagine an early Salem news agency not only identifying "the Witch", but linking the story to a sale on firewood and stakes, and including statements from neighbors who are shocked to discover the quiet lady next door (with all those cats) was casting spells on them all along... but I digress... The media picks up on and exacerbates mob mentality, so it's always prudent to fact check and act independently, particularly when considering to target someone to shun/boycott/burn at the stake. Edited April 11, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Hi DA: Appreciated that you undertook to find some sense in my little outburst. Good thoughts. It runs deep, doesn't it, that Salem witch hunt mentality? - apt and amusing reference, btw - and it has always been a sore point to me. Any time I see or hear that media-speak "public outrage", I cringe. Usually, it's a sign that some moral injustice has been, or will be perpetrated in the village square. Personally, I have no hesitation relating it to its most physically savage, once unforgettably having been witness to mob "justice". Back to normality, and it seems every participant in this sanctimonious shunning and social ostracism, has lost or will lose, to some degree, their individual consciousness and judgment into that of the crowd, so the crowd "speaks" with a single voice - usually at the cost of some lone individual. The facts and principles hardly count when someone has been pinpointed as an offender of 'Society'. (For that, I'm sure, Rand said "To be free, a man must be free of his brothers." When free of them he can embrace - associate with - or avoid, whichever ones he chooses.) It is the 'reality of now', that everything and everybody is represented by some special interest group; so, pragmatically, one could say that in the interim, freedom-lovers should fight fire with fire and oppose them by forming their own group. I don't see an easy answer, because there is something self-refuting in that approach. Ulimately, individuals further individualism, more than a collective can. One cannot (apparently) have a voice unless you are part of a group, which deems you newsworthy by the media. We have increasingly a world of passive viewers waiting for BBC/Sky/CNN etc. to inform us what to get morally indignant about, and why we should, and the media feeds it. Today, the tree that falls in the forest did not make a sound unless CNN was there to record it. Edited April 12, 2014 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.