How the Sausage Gets Made

Cancel Culture is the manifestation of a revolution currently under way! Essentially the domination of one sentiment over the other, at large scale and with unsettling instances of collateral damage, it is exactly what one might expect to occur if a social revolution was enabled by modern technology. The digital aspects particular to this revolution aside, the essence of the phenomenon has analogues in history: during the American Revolution, the sentiment that was silenced was British sympathy--not all colonials were supportive of the push for independence, and expressing that sentiment exposed oneself to serious harm. For the sake of self-preservation, non-sympathizers find themselves trying to not get trampled. Revolutions are characteristically messy, the very best causes will still make one's stomach churn when looking too closely. Even where a revolution is necessary to right horrendous systemic problems, my heart goes out to the ones so unlucky as to be "tied up to a stake and burned," to be made an example of. The razor is moving. For better or worse, a "right side of history" is in the making, and we are in the splash zone.

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 8, 2020 at 3:17 PM

    The people that can become collateral damage tends to happen to those non-sympathizers. They mind there own business and tend to daily or even weekly task. The people who want change take radical steps to enact it and destroy property and can ultimately cause more harm than good. I feel like there are a lot of recent events that categorize this such as the election, black lives matter and so many other movements. I am just hoping if we want change we ensue a peaceful change and not a violent or derogative change.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

It is absurd that replicating an idea or performance can be litigated against . The rationale for intellectual rights certainly does not hold up universally to reason, indicating it does not succeed in protecting something of inherent value without also producing at least some harm. Suppose that the first person to walk upright had claimed that action to be a novel and creative feat, and forbade anyone to mimic their style--with only the exception of this first-doer , or so-called "artist," the entire human race would be reduced to crawling (assuming  that was not also copyrighted). This imposes severe restrictions on human attainment, and more importantly their wellbeing. The rationale behind intellectual property is that it incentivizes innovation within a capitalist system, to justify the overhead cost in speculative research and development. In truth the necessity for such laws indicates a severe shortcoming of capitalism . The initiative to innovate is not naturally ac...
Read more

A Petty Problem

One would think that there existed a topic out there in the world which was so inconsequential that people would not even bother expending energy to come to a resolution over it--some disagreement whose subject just plain does not matter . If this were the case, then we could prioritize issues whose resolution makes real improvements to society. Unfortunately even the silliest distinctions seem to provoke heated discussion around them to justify one side and fault the other. The significance of the smallest sentiments is regularly inflated, even to the suggestion that normative ethics could be derived from the smallest issue. For example, elaborate sketches can be designed to denigrate entire generations  over a distinction in just vernacular, as if during this  two minutes, fifty-seven seconds  one imagines that the only thing that mattered in the world was the inflection one used during conversation; and countless programming convention standards will tirelessly war ov...
Read more