The most obvious aspect of this time-period is also probably the thing most people fail to notice: this era has finally exposed the blatantly hypocrisy which was (somewhat) easier to conceal, before the advent of our so-called “digital” lifestyle.
Here’s what I mean:
On the one hand, literally everybody (of every ideological persuasion) is apt to start chortling about how wonderful it is that – finally, after decades where the “legacy media” put up extreme “barriers to entry” which systematically marginalized – or outright silenced – dissenting views – the Internet/blogging/”social media”/whatever has finally enabled near-instantaneous, global access to the sum total of human knowledge – including formerly-marginalized viewpoints and ideas – essentially at the touch of a button.
Everybody absolutely loves this fact – except, of course, that there is (supposedly) a “dark side” to it.
As with all previous “moral panics”, the (supposed) “Dark Side” of the information revolution boils down to two undeniable facts – neither of which bode well for would-be “social engineers” – of any ideological stripe:
These two facts are:
- Both your “good” ideas, and your enemies’ “Bad ideas” are finally equally accessible.
- Censorship/suppression/”control” of information is, basically, impossible.
A mundane example of both the above points was Kathy Griffin’s severed trump-head fiasco/photo op.
Fiost, she claimed that it was all about “images that make noise”. Then, when that “noise” became too “loud” for her taste, she attempted to “delete” something which had already gone “viral” – and been “mirrored” thousands – if not millions – of times, in the process.
Another (extremely prosaic) example is the endless yip-yap about “Internet porn”. “Parents” conveniently disregard the fact that earlier generations of teens did everything from looking at their dad’s stash of Playboy right on down to “accidentally” stumbling acrosss “dirty” videos from the local “adult” shop.
Anti-porn “activists” are impotent (pun very much intended) to enforce whatever their specific sort of prudery might happen to be.
Now, extend the above fact to cover: religious apologetics/propaganda, advocacy of atheism, non-“mainstream” politics/philosophies (Objectivism/Libertarianism/”Green” party/Anarcho-syndicalism, whatever.), information about how to make guns/explosives/”illegal” drugs, “apps” specifically designed to make it more difficult for cops to “kettle” protesters – the list is so vast, because somebody, somewhere, is guaranteed to want some portion of “the sum total of human knowledge” – CENSORED and/or SUPPRESSED.
Big Pharma would really love it if the myriad of “alternative” medical approaches magically disappeared . “Mainstream” scientists would genuinely love to see purportedly “fringe” or “crank” notions consigned to the dustbin of history. This is especially true in regard to (so-called) “Climate denialism” (the “snarl-word” used by would-be eco-tyrants in an effort to silence anyone who would even dare to question their purported “consensus’/the “nice tricks” played by climate “scientists”, etc.
Again: my point isn’t whether any of the above happens to be true: my point is – damn near everybody would really, really, really, really REALLY love at least some form of censorship/”thought control” – provided, that THEY/their “faction” were the ones holding the whip.
Now, blatant hypocrisy was a “thing” long before the Internet, of course: a perfect example is Yawwon Bwook/Leonard Peikoff’s rather pathetic hand-waving on the topic of “gun control”. (Hint: either you explicitly favor no restrictions on “production and trade” – even in the “production and trade” of potentially ‘dangerous” items/substances – or you favor some such infringements.
It makes absolutely no difference whether you personally manage to rationalize such infringements as “minor” (by what standard? BLANK OUT!).
ANY such restrictions on production and trade cede the principle of “separation between State and Economics” -and quite frankly, from that point forward, the march to the “Total State” is merely an issue of time, and consistency/
The amusing thing about “gun control” advocates in general (and purportedly “objectivist”/”Libertarian” onces specifically) is that they know full well that their proposed “law” WILL fail (IE: merely turn an existing market “Black”, and drive it – somewhat -‘underground’) – but they clamor for such “laws” anyway.
Didn’t they learn anything from the “war on drugs”? Obviously not.
At any rate, blatant hypocrisy. is “better than hidden hypocrisy – in the sense that a gaping, spurting, bloody wound is “better” than internal hemorrhaging.
Neither of them are anywhere near “good”.