Times Person Of The Year
Out of context: Reply #120
- Started
- Last post
- 174 Responses
- ********0
that's an extremely derogatory and sweeping generalizing statement, Witt.
There are lots of people sharing information that are beneficial to the state of the world. there are lots of activists and idealists exchanging ideas and information online.
from the bloggers from Iraq and other troubled nations up to the ones that trigger protests, petitions and even offline conferences that have their basis in an online environment.
just because there exists a lot of cynicism amongst many people here and elswhere online does not mean that the initiatives and forceful perseverance of ideals does not exist at all online. and therefore it is rather saddening to see that some of you really believe that all attempts to create communities are futile if not totally worthless. even though there is a lot of mediocre material out there does not mean you have to take a derogatory stance on "the masses" as everyone has their own intentions and ideals and it can only become more insightful as opinions and intentions become visible in this virtual world.
be very careful by just throwing everyone of a lesser intellect in a bucket of "masses that are mediocre" because that is a display of arrogance with which i would not want to identify.
Crouwel
(Dec 17 06, 11:38)well i was expression my doubts, not my convictions - i concur the way i posted it looks arrogant and generalising though. sometimes i use english words with the same 'weight' they have here.
and it's not about "throwing everyone of a lesser intellect in a bucket" precisely because i don't think that (and this is my conviction) that there is a medium platform of comparision.
and it's precisely against that concept of "mass" that i was trying to express myself, in the sense that the many different qualities and talents people possess wherever are and that are useful, respectful or just dispised by cultural rules in each of the world's communities are DEROGATED when confronted with the mass.
And what is lacking (this is my
doubt) is people realizing that belonging to a "mass" anhiquilates them individually. And since this concept is constantly repeated in the media as a "good thing" you see people trying desperately trying to achieve a "common" thing, trying to be all alike everywhere. i'm not sure that is good because why should people be FORCED to accept things that are meaningless to them as correct and valuable items? who established that value?from what i'm gathering these days people call good to something that sells. as long as it sells it's good. that frightens me more than anything else because i feel that that principle is utterly wrong. it's twisted.
and you can bet that that overpowering force that is levelling all things through marketing is much more prejudical than having me calling this or that 'shit', because it numbs people. it just numbs people and you know that.