|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^4: A message for Anonymous Monkby Intrepid (Deacon)
|on Dec 03, 2008 at 14:13 UTC||Need Help??|
I also passionately disagree.
That sounds like something Moritz learned through repeated scoldings in nursery school and it just stuck. It's one of the most na´ve dogmas out there, and one of the easiest to disprove. I'm not going to engage in one of those sophomoric pseudo-philosophical battles of word-twisting on the point, but I will make the observation that it is nearly impossible to have emerged from the US (or British I hear) educational system without having at least once been on the receiving end of physical belligerence by some troubled classmate, which one did nothing to provoke, and then been called to the office for punishment on account of 'fighting' based on 'reports' from staff who saw nothing of the start of the thing.
It's actually very easy to get on the wrong side of people who have a drive to make themselves look better than others. Mostly all you have to do is to be around.
Perlmonks is basically an elementary school where a significant percentage of the staff and students are merely in denial about how truly nice a place it is. New people sometimes make arrogant declarations about how uniformly wonderful the Monastery is without ever taking the time to check into the large body of contradictory historical evidence that is the node database. Then when challenged, they'll often synthesize a theory to explain why they are still right, and somehow it must the fault of the far more experienced person who pointed out their shallow knowledge of the place, that they have a different 'take' on it.
It's all very illuminating to anyone studying group dynamics, mass movements, hypernationalism and so on. It's like a microcosm of society with a distinctly Lord of the Flies cant to it.
The current tendency at Perlmonks' Chatterbox is to advocate a doctrine that the most fundamental right people have at PMo is to be as stupid and impulsive as they want to, and no choices made by others should ever be allowed to bring harm to that 'freedom'. (for example, a personal /ignore list.) This notion of 'freedom' apparently extends to include an unabridgeable right to access to the minds of others (through the medium of the visual senses) no matter what the intention, mentality or life-condition of the speaker.
It's like the concept of 'freedom' being re-interpreted by morons on crack. No one ever mentions the concept of 'taking responsibility for one's actions' (again, except during synthesis of a self-serving 'theory' about why a dissident who doesn't subscribe the the group dogma that PMo is 'nice' is disagreeing ...); the coupling of personal responsibility with freedom that is inherent in genuine philosophical understanding of the concept of freedom has been totally broken, again, maybe in the process of lighting the crack pipe or downing the salvia or rolling the reefer or swilling the ale.