|
RemoteUser -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/21/2015 4:52:18 PM)
|
To the original post/OP:
Anti-X opinions on the individual level are just the expression of a single collective of views from one person in the crowd. The general consensus as expressed on these boards over the years is that the individual's opinion is sacrosanct in terms of validity, as is any dissenting opinion refuting the initial expression. Anyone can agree or disagree with anyone. (So far, common sense is in the lead.)
Anti-X opinions on the group level from a factual standpoint is just a number of individual opinions that happen to agree with one another. From a social standpoint, it all goes to shit by translation and perception. We see trends whether there is one or not. We form opinions on the trends we see, again, whether there is one or not. By perceived agreement over one commonly shared opinion, we practice unestablished camaraderie by doling out comments against what is perceived as the opposing movement...again, whether there is one or not. Lines get drawn in the sand to mark the "opposing sides" that are artficially born from two differing expressions. In the rare instance, the tribes band together and the flaming comments begin. (The history of the Introductions section bears silent testimony to this.) Or to be topically salient with modern trends:
50 Shades
Findommes
Healthcare (in the US)
Subs vs Slaves
The One True Way
SSC or RACK
There are more, of course, and some are heavier than others (like chosen social structures - Poly or Gor, anyone?), but I think that little list carries enough weight all on its own.
How the individual chooses to express themselves, with compliance, butthurt, bashing, or any other reactive commentary, speaks to the individual (as Bear pointed out quite nicely - thank you Bear, always a pleasure). That is entirely outside of the general consensus or the manner in which a community chooses to organize itself (like the little ongoing social experiment that is the forums). How a community reacts tends to speak more to the aforementioned trends (however viable), how the individual components of that communal organism contribute, and yes, how the mods govern the forums.
Why a person bothers to care is really summed up by their own code of criteria that defines their chosen sets and subsets of behaviour. They react based on their belief system as channeled through what they perceive as proper social interaction. As long as that channeling is done in a way that doesn't break the rules, the mods will let it pass; and the rest is up to all the rest of us and how WE choose to react in turn (by governing ourselves and our influence through communication).
Personally, I need a reason to care. When the reason is there, I express myself (and not always stupidly, but hey, I've had my moments). I think the reason I've gotten better at avoiding pitfalls in how I express myself is due in large part to my motives. As I get older I find it's not so important to "win". It's far more satisfying to speak my opinion and let it stand on its own merits. I don't have to make a person agree with me, I don't need to convince them I'm really the one in the right. I still call shenanigans when I see them as such, though, out of a sense of wanting to conduct a fair conversation where both parties have the ability to listen and learn. I can't make anyone do either, of course (not ethically, at least, and not without some consent from the other side), but some effort is still made to point out anything that detracts from the conversation because right or wrong, the key is to share ideas to grow and learn. Otherwise, y'all pissing in the wind.
Case in point: I am entirely unapologetic about my essay. [:D] If you can't read it all, so be it, but I'm quite ok with taking the time to clearly speak my thoughts.
As to the subtopic of fidelity - fidelity is a social construct. Yes, it can be influenced by religion, but birds aren't religious and yet they can still be monogamous or wild whores depending on the species. The society reacts in the way it thinks will protect its own best interests. (Diehard evolutionists might say animals conduct fidelity solely by natural selection and that humans don't; if anyone nibbles on that worm, I'll take the stance that humans are no different from animals when it comes to having certain genetic reactions geared towards survival and selection.)
As an individual I choose to be fidelitous. My view comes from the acknowledgement that I want a fidelitous partner, I believe in leading by example, and so I set the example. I can see being poly and fidelitous quite easily, because it's how the individuals involved in that relationship agree to define fidelity. Just because I'm a fan of fidelity doesn't mean I think that my view is the be all and end all of the topic, and I would never tell anyone else how to live their life because in relation to their life, really, who the fuck am I? If infidelity works for you, fine, if you do it and it doesn't work, that may be consequence rearing its ugly head to say I told you so. Same goes for those who try poly and cuckolding; if it works for you and yours, then all the best to you. If you try it and it doesn't work, reconsider what you're doing and whether you should be doing it (motivation creeps back into the topic).
The need to be right pretty much sums up all negative connotations that apply to the word deluge I've conjured up so far. Self discipline and integrity define how it's handled. Successful communication makes it all moot. (Yes, I just summed it all in a handful of words. Still unapologetic.)
|
|
|
|
