One word: outlaw.
More precisely, being outlawed with no recourse through rational discussion.
Back in the bad old days, things were extremely authoritarian. If the monarch/warlord was displeased with any particular person, there is literally no recourse for that said person, no matter what status that he/she has, for the simple reason that there is no one with a status that is higher than the monarch/warlord. People were property then, and only the masters/owners of property can decide how they would like to dispense them.
The Magna Carta Libertatum was among the first attempts [in the Western world] of the leaders-under-the-monarch/warlord to be given a legal status that would allow them to operate some semblence of a rational law. It gets ugly for a while before the more famous Constitution of the United States, its associated United States Bill of Rights, and the eventual (less famous) Universal Declaration of Human Rights came about.
All those listed documents act as a framework to define what counts as lawful behaviour of people. There are, of course, national laws, state laws, and other ordinances that are defined at various levels of various societies as well.
The problem then of ``woke''/``cancel'' culture is the systematic throwing out of all these laws/ordinances with the declaration that the laws/ordinances enshrine systemic biases that are innately unfair to various sub-sets of people. It is the taking apart of the normal processes of adjusting laws/ordinances and the replacement with a more pathos-heavy reasoning process: ``it doesn't make me feel good, therefore it is wrong; and most important of all, if you do not agree with me that it is wrong, then you are wrong and there is no way for you to not be wrong unless you agree with me''. It is an extreme position that does not allow for dissenting views to be discussed with a better rule being created---it is militant in the sense of weaponising ex-communication, to make the person who dissents an outlaw, through the deprivation of effective protection of the said person as provided by the law through sowing fear, uncertainty, doubt via the loud and pathos-heavy path of the public opinion.
``Woke''/``cancel'' culture is quick to accuse, quicker to crucify, and slow to admit mistakes, never truly apologising/recanting statements made in error (intentionally or otherwise). It's about mobilising the momentum of public opinion to advance a narrative of extremes: everyone is either wholly bad, or wholly good, and ``goodness'' is defined as those that are with the accuser. The vehemence and vitriol that can be spewed disgusts me greatly---everything that is said by someone who is ``woke'' has a tendency to be self-centred with no room for understanding subtlety, with the usual claim that they had been trying to open communications with those who are in the system, but all diplomacy has failed, which leads to the completely un-erring conclusion that violent reprisal (physical or verbal) is the only solution.
To me, it's like watching a bunch of three-year-olds enacting their version of justice, only it is less cute because we are talking about adults who are deliberately doing things that make life a living hell for other adults, whether or not the receiving party ``deserves it'' or not.
I suspect that part of the reason why this ``woke''/``cancel'' culture is more prevalent now is due to the general improvement in the life styles of people that they no longer have to worry too much about looking after their food and shelter needs. It's like the three-year-olds all over again---their form of [extreme] justice works because they literally do not have to worry about when their next meal is coming, or if they have a place to sleep safely at night. It was the case that we would say that a child has ``an old head on young shoulders'' as though it were a good thing when the said child acts more matured than their physical age might suggest. But having reflected on the cases where such things happen, I come to a different conclusion: any child that acts more matured than their physical age has done so because they didn't have the luxury of living in ignorance of the daily toils that were needed to ensure that life could continue.
Am I dissing on people who are ``woke'' or practise ``cancel'' culture? Yeah, in a way. I mean, I can understand their intent in fixing a corrupt and broken system, but I do not agree with their methods. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.Funny enough, I just realise that this concept is behind Alucard's anger at Father Alexander Anderson in Hellsing when the latter decides to use the Nail of Helena to become a plant-type regenerator to fight Alucard, and his refrain of ``Only humans can kill monsters.''.
Anyway, that's all I have for now. Till the next update.
No comments:
Post a Comment