RE: The Daily Meme #695!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
so the conflicts will probably remain.
Yes, perfection is not an option, only the minimization of error.
Shall these cases be talked about in the open?
The hw's appeals are all public in the discord, but few keep up with what is happening day to day.
I've been watching for years, and few 'abused authors' have withstood scrutiny.
They have all somehow colored outside the lines, but don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Hw's is doing an adequate job, now.
I can't speak from before ~2019, but times were wilder then.
Nobody is willing to step up and do something similar, so hw's is what we get until somebody does.
You have to be a dolt or very devious to get publicly upset about unfair treatment or to cause a ripple. Yes, I would say that some of those caught got a bit too upset. One has to be careful not to be too impressed as an uninvolved observer, however, such observers have certainly done their bit to ensure that HW do not continue to go too overboard in their way of dealing with abuse. Indeed, no one wants to do this work, it is a thankless task. Basically, it is all an ongoing act, a never-ending balancing of what constitutes human interaction. This can also be seen as a learning field for processes that were experienced in life by our ancestors, for example in unregulated clashes on previously unoccupied territories. Since the internet in a way represents such uncharted territory, and what happened before in the physical world is imitated here.
Since civilised people already live in over-regulated spaces where everything they do or don't do is subject to some rule or law, it is new and difficult to come to terms with environments that are not yet so thoroughly regulated and offer more freedom, comparatively. In theory, everyone can know everything better, but in practice it is very easy to come up against limits and problems of understanding and lack of experience with leadership.
It's almost as if we have lost all our rites of passage to adulthood.
The identities being shared are fewer each decade.
The better to control us with, I guess.
When our first lesson in life is 'do what you are told, or consequences', we too often begin to wait our turn to dish out our own version of consequences.
Then we take the opportunities with great relish, some of us.
Those that engineer consent don't have the benefit of us all in mind, or this wouldn't be the case so much of the time.
We did. There is nothing in terms of hardship and endurance favored in modern societies. Everything has to be easy and pain free. I believed for a long time that this ought to be the case. But I was wrong. Entering adulthood must come with risk, pain and the success of having felt hurt and anxiety in order to be prepared for similar happenings.
In small tribal cultures, so the assumption goes, those who belonged to the tribe had a clear identity. But at the same time, this prevented them from breaking away and questioning it. The multitude of coexisting identity groups in peaceful coexistence probably only lasted as long as the peace was not disturbed. But where the respective rites of passage from childhood to adulthood diverged greatly, turbulence and conflict as well as war would have ensued. Nevertheless, I believe that the mixing of peoples also took place in tribal cultures and was recognised as necessary. Something like trade in food and valuable goods will also have taken place among the early peoples, I think.
That is probably so. It's better to undergo some risks while still at young age and having been able to break rules without being caught in doing so. This may prevent the individual to be too resentful towards others when breaking rules becomes the main focus.
When things go one's way for too long it begins to corrupt the character.
Not hearing no is not good for personal development, imo.
Just look around, the kids nowadays get mad when somebody tells them no.
I worked in the PR and media business for about 15 years. I learned there from scratch which instruments of influencing people are most effective. This includes the unrestricted repetition of pre-determined catchwords, which one then stoically publishes again and again, so that through this method something is believed to be important and true, regardless of whether it really is. At that time, we had clear guidelines from the companies commissioning us and all measures were neatly evaluated according to certain criteria. People are very gullible and easily influenced, is what I learned from this and even I, as a professional, fell for other PR measures where I didn't have my own area of work. I learned that building a brand is essential for the awareness of a product or a person. This brand must always be communicated in the same way under all circumstances, the values must appear permanently and in agonising repetition in all press releases in a certain number and intensity (also in a figurative sense). This is how you achieve the broad and long-lasting effect. Supported by image and colour worlds.
Since no individual likes to think of himself as gullible, PR is usually not recognized as such.
Edward Bernays is the culprit.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275553/page/n7/mode/2up
Have you come across The Crowd?