wsdante: (Default)
Banks, eh?

It all comes down to interest;

Our lack

And their 'self-'
wsdante: (Default)
The 'room' that is our world seems to contain an such number of elephants that I'm surprised there's space enough to pass the biscuits... 

Like the argument that says violence in the media de-sensitises us to violence, I wonder if the proliferation of outrageous scandals and corporate atrocities and invasions in the guise of aid in the media now overloads us to the point that we can only shrug and sigh impotently.
In that, I am as guilty as anyone.
I mean, we can't rage against everything - surely, no-one has that much time or energy. It's hard enough keeping our own lives on a stable track without diverting what we have left into 'active' activism.
So we just read/hear about it and groan resignedly as we thank the fates that it doesn't directly interfere with ourselves and our loved ones.

I wonder if there will come a tipping point. I'm no sociologist, but are we ever, as a race, going to look back in awe and horror at what goes on today just as we do when we look at the Victorians shoving five year-old children up chimneys, for example?

"Well, in those days, they used to allow business leaders to pay themselves obscene amounts for quitting their collapsing companies."

"Some countries would secure resources from smaller, less powerful countries by inventing humanitarian pretexts for invasion. Afterwards, they could restructure the country any way they wished. Russia, however, (with massive resources and its hands on the taps of enormous oil supplies), could act how it wanted towards bordering states but would receive only frowns and grumbles because it was too big and powerful to invade. Conversely, the atrocities in some weaker countries were allowed to go on because they didn't have enough resources to make it worth invading... I mean... 'aiding'... "

"They found entertainment in, to give one example,  the 24 hour surveillance of misguided and fame-hungry people - the more desperate and unstable the better -  locked in one building together. Ironically, the idea was to be the one who stayed inside the longest and this depended upon how well you played to the crowd. The inevitable squabbles, bullying, betrayals and embarrassing attempts to 'stand out' were regarded as amusing and it was also a comfort to regular viewers to deride desperate, unstable, misguided and fame-hungry people from the privacy of their armchairs. We think this was a progression of the Circus Maximus and a clear sign of a civilisation in decline. And, like the Roman arenas, they could decide the fate of individuals by the flick of a digit. All very empowering. "   



Is the placid majority of the world population simply waiting for some other brave individual to be the one to stand up and declare the emperor naked?

If he/she did, would we back them up then? 

Or would we mutter our support among our friends but refuse to step up when it mattered?

Jeez, I'm so spineless... I really don't know.

Profile

wsdante: (Default)
wsdante

December 2011

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
181920212223 24
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 04:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios