Beginning of the End of Privacy on the Internet
Moderator: bbmods
-
Mugwump
- Posts: 8787
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
- Location: Between London and Melbourne
^ a good and interesting post, David, which engages with the issues constructively rather than throwing slime based on a peculiar and highly partial interpretation of what was clearly written.
In response, a few points :
1. Much of the pornography on the internet - which, of course, I have seen too - is flagrantly abusive, degrading and misogynistic. If you look at the things that young boys expect of young women today, the level of sexual violence recorded today vs fifty years ago, and the impact on relationships, I'd suggest that it is harmful, and reflective of a period in which we, as a society, have reduced our sense of shame about sexuality. It has been perhaps the greatest setback to feminism in the last thirty years, yet the Left - almost universally libertarian and supposedly feminist - ask themselves very few challenging questions about it.
2. I think the idea of self-disclosure and self-containment is integral to the idea of shame, and to the idea of individual freedom and our integrity and autonomy as human beings. There is a reason that both 1984 and Brave New World make sexual openness a hallmark of totalitarian regimes. It is worth reading Roger Scruton on this, as he makes a very persuasive argument on the subject. I also suspect it is deep within human nature, so your desire to overcome it is likely to be problematic in the extreme.
I said twice in my original post that I consider pornography consumption a bad thing, but not a major "sin" worthy of such horrible consequences. I merely wish that we would be more direct in saying that it is bad, and inevitably risky, and that it is far better shunned. I think that is probably the only protection an individual could truly be sure of.
On your specific points, few people dispute the right to privacy in regard to internet usage. The question is how far, and to whom the information should be available on what grounds. You seem to suggest that one has to accept an absolute privacy standard (including to law enforcement agencies) or abolish shame. I think this is a false assumption.
You also seem to assume that a "free for all" attitude to sexuality is "sophisticated". I think you might consider this from different angles before being so sure of it.
In response, a few points :
1. Much of the pornography on the internet - which, of course, I have seen too - is flagrantly abusive, degrading and misogynistic. If you look at the things that young boys expect of young women today, the level of sexual violence recorded today vs fifty years ago, and the impact on relationships, I'd suggest that it is harmful, and reflective of a period in which we, as a society, have reduced our sense of shame about sexuality. It has been perhaps the greatest setback to feminism in the last thirty years, yet the Left - almost universally libertarian and supposedly feminist - ask themselves very few challenging questions about it.
2. I think the idea of self-disclosure and self-containment is integral to the idea of shame, and to the idea of individual freedom and our integrity and autonomy as human beings. There is a reason that both 1984 and Brave New World make sexual openness a hallmark of totalitarian regimes. It is worth reading Roger Scruton on this, as he makes a very persuasive argument on the subject. I also suspect it is deep within human nature, so your desire to overcome it is likely to be problematic in the extreme.
I said twice in my original post that I consider pornography consumption a bad thing, but not a major "sin" worthy of such horrible consequences. I merely wish that we would be more direct in saying that it is bad, and inevitably risky, and that it is far better shunned. I think that is probably the only protection an individual could truly be sure of.
On your specific points, few people dispute the right to privacy in regard to internet usage. The question is how far, and to whom the information should be available on what grounds. You seem to suggest that one has to accept an absolute privacy standard (including to law enforcement agencies) or abolish shame. I think this is a false assumption.
You also seem to assume that a "free for all" attitude to sexuality is "sophisticated". I think you might consider this from different angles before being so sure of it.
Two more flags before I die!