I don't mean social responsibility; social responsibility is the individual's responsibility to overall society -- his fellow man, as it were; societal responsibility is something entirely different: Societal responsibility is society's responsibility to itself, as well as the individuals which comprise it.
America has never taken societal responsibility for anything it has ever done- - and it has done a lot. America continually whitewashes its mistakes and purposely distorts the truth about the intentional wrongs it has committed as a society.
Now, the issues surrounding the tragedy at Virginia Tech have turned to gun control, the legality of involuntary hospitalization, mental illness in general, and the influence of pop-culture on society. And too many people have chosen the age-old position of "no responsibility." That translates directly to: "Not my problem." And the other side's response is, also far too often: *shrug* "Good point."
In other words, nothing gets solved because no one really gives a shit and no one's going to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for being a member of a society in which school shootings are an annual event; a society which records over 200 full-length pornographic films a week; a society whose media and news reporters have been repeatedly found guilty of manufacturing stories and distorting issues and events to create the news; a society in which factions segregate themselves from one another across the spectrum in order to create antisocial sub-societies (by race, by religious beliefs, by political opinion, et. al.).
The simple fact of the matter is that it damn well should be harder to purchase a gun in VA; its gun purchasing laws are (among) the most lax in the country. No private citizen needs access to fully-automatic weapons of any kind for any reason -- unless the region is under Martial Law and/or some other political upheaval (in which case no "laws" exist, making it a moot point). Anyone- - including the gun manufacturers, the NRA, and all politicians and pro-gun advocates -- who contend otherwise are complicit to the crimes committed with these weapons, no matter how they are attained, and should be charged as accessories.
The simple fact of the matter is that more than one person complained of Cho Seung-hui's bizarre behavior, including two young women who complained of harassment and an English teacher who forwarded e-mails and highly disturbing creative writing assignments to both college authorities and law enforcement agencies. The law and the college failed to follow-up on these complaints and monitor the young man's behavior and general mental health. In fact, more and more students in general have come forward to say that Seung-hui was considered in general, by pretty much everyone, to be one creepy little guy.
What they could have done, exactly, I don't know. I do not believe that, when it comes to mental health, the maxim "where there's smoke there's fire" applies, simply because of the very breadth of individuals' beliefs, views, outlooks, and so on. But I don't think it a bad thing for authorities to more closely monitor those people others have complained about -- especially when a lot of people with no association to one another have complained about that person, especially not if they have done so more than once. I'm not suggesting involuntary hospitalization, just more interaction with the the person. And more on this in a moment.
Do violent video games, music, movies, television, and other pop-culture entertainment affect those who view them? Absolutely. There is no question about that; there should be no debate about that. It's a desensitivization to such things, making them seem less "real" and more abstract in nature. The same effect is seen with pornography and sex. Pornography is becoming increasingly more violent, aggressive, and perverse for this very (and very basic) reason; by the time kids hit 17-18 years old nowadays, they've likely seen most every sex act known, so they begin seeking out more extreme pornography because all the "vanilla" stuff is stale. The same effects are seen with hard drugs.
It's a big "DUH" factor, just like with the previous two issues, and America consistently stands there, time and again, like a slack-jawed moron and goes, "Wha' happened?" like the comedy relief in a B-rated horror flick.
So what is the point I'm making here? Because I realize it could be misconstrued. The point is pretty straightforward:
We Americans, as a society, have decided that any individual act or action is completely the fault of that individual who is solely responsible for his own actions. And this is true only to a certain extent, because nothing happens in a vacuum. This is the "Not my problem" argument I have been railing against for something like 30 years now -- basically since I learned to talk.
Americans don't want to admit that porn has gone way beyond the borders of being simply filmed sex acts or that it has an effect on individuals because we want to continue to enjoy it. We don't want to admit that guns are too easy to get because we want to be able to buy them easily. We don't want to admit that violence in pop-culture entertainment has an effect on individuals because we want to continue seeing people hurt one another on-screen. It's basically a societal shrug: "Well, so what if that guy went nuts, I like that kind of stuff and I haven't gone nuts."
Except that it keeps happening, doesn't it?
And, at some point, with each other individual that we add to that list of people who have been affected, a society emerges. Because, you see, society is comprised of individuals. Even if this is just a sub-sect of the larger pastiche, that's still important. States are a segment of the whole country and counties within those states are only a part of that region, and so on down the line, until you reach the individual in the house in a community within a county in a state of the nation.
So, at some point, what we are saying is that there is no individual until an evil act is committed, at which point there is only the individual. It's less of a dichotomy than a double-standard which says, "I am not responsible for my fellow man but, if he trespasses against me or anyone else, it is my place to judge and punish him." Or, "I have no responsibility to my fellow man but I reserve the right to judge and punish him as, and when, I see fit."
If he's drowning, I don't have to throw him a lifeline; that's his problem. If he was pushed into the water, I still don't have to help him, but I can punish the guy who pushed him. By taking revenge on those who do wrong, I am "honoring" those who were wronged, but I will not be responsible for not taking action to stop the wrong before it occurred.
This is America's position as a society. This is America's societal outlook.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
America has never taken societal responsibility for anything it has ever done- - and it has done a lot. America continually whitewashes its mistakes and purposely distorts the truth about the intentional wrongs it has committed as a society.
Now, the issues surrounding the tragedy at Virginia Tech have turned to gun control, the legality of involuntary hospitalization, mental illness in general, and the influence of pop-culture on society. And too many people have chosen the age-old position of "no responsibility." That translates directly to: "Not my problem." And the other side's response is, also far too often: *shrug* "Good point."
In other words, nothing gets solved because no one really gives a shit and no one's going to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for being a member of a society in which school shootings are an annual event; a society which records over 200 full-length pornographic films a week; a society whose media and news reporters have been repeatedly found guilty of manufacturing stories and distorting issues and events to create the news; a society in which factions segregate themselves from one another across the spectrum in order to create antisocial sub-societies (by race, by religious beliefs, by political opinion, et. al.).
The simple fact of the matter is that it damn well should be harder to purchase a gun in VA; its gun purchasing laws are (among) the most lax in the country. No private citizen needs access to fully-automatic weapons of any kind for any reason -- unless the region is under Martial Law and/or some other political upheaval (in which case no "laws" exist, making it a moot point). Anyone- - including the gun manufacturers, the NRA, and all politicians and pro-gun advocates -- who contend otherwise are complicit to the crimes committed with these weapons, no matter how they are attained, and should be charged as accessories.
The simple fact of the matter is that more than one person complained of Cho Seung-hui's bizarre behavior, including two young women who complained of harassment and an English teacher who forwarded e-mails and highly disturbing creative writing assignments to both college authorities and law enforcement agencies. The law and the college failed to follow-up on these complaints and monitor the young man's behavior and general mental health. In fact, more and more students in general have come forward to say that Seung-hui was considered in general, by pretty much everyone, to be one creepy little guy.
What they could have done, exactly, I don't know. I do not believe that, when it comes to mental health, the maxim "where there's smoke there's fire" applies, simply because of the very breadth of individuals' beliefs, views, outlooks, and so on. But I don't think it a bad thing for authorities to more closely monitor those people others have complained about -- especially when a lot of people with no association to one another have complained about that person, especially not if they have done so more than once. I'm not suggesting involuntary hospitalization, just more interaction with the the person. And more on this in a moment.
Do violent video games, music, movies, television, and other pop-culture entertainment affect those who view them? Absolutely. There is no question about that; there should be no debate about that. It's a desensitivization to such things, making them seem less "real" and more abstract in nature. The same effect is seen with pornography and sex. Pornography is becoming increasingly more violent, aggressive, and perverse for this very (and very basic) reason; by the time kids hit 17-18 years old nowadays, they've likely seen most every sex act known, so they begin seeking out more extreme pornography because all the "vanilla" stuff is stale. The same effects are seen with hard drugs.
It's a big "DUH" factor, just like with the previous two issues, and America consistently stands there, time and again, like a slack-jawed moron and goes, "Wha' happened?" like the comedy relief in a B-rated horror flick.
So what is the point I'm making here? Because I realize it could be misconstrued. The point is pretty straightforward:
We Americans, as a society, have decided that any individual act or action is completely the fault of that individual who is solely responsible for his own actions. And this is true only to a certain extent, because nothing happens in a vacuum. This is the "Not my problem" argument I have been railing against for something like 30 years now -- basically since I learned to talk.
Americans don't want to admit that porn has gone way beyond the borders of being simply filmed sex acts or that it has an effect on individuals because we want to continue to enjoy it. We don't want to admit that guns are too easy to get because we want to be able to buy them easily. We don't want to admit that violence in pop-culture entertainment has an effect on individuals because we want to continue seeing people hurt one another on-screen. It's basically a societal shrug: "Well, so what if that guy went nuts, I like that kind of stuff and I haven't gone nuts."
Except that it keeps happening, doesn't it?
And, at some point, with each other individual that we add to that list of people who have been affected, a society emerges. Because, you see, society is comprised of individuals. Even if this is just a sub-sect of the larger pastiche, that's still important. States are a segment of the whole country and counties within those states are only a part of that region, and so on down the line, until you reach the individual in the house in a community within a county in a state of the nation.
So, at some point, what we are saying is that there is no individual until an evil act is committed, at which point there is only the individual. It's less of a dichotomy than a double-standard which says, "I am not responsible for my fellow man but, if he trespasses against me or anyone else, it is my place to judge and punish him." Or, "I have no responsibility to my fellow man but I reserve the right to judge and punish him as, and when, I see fit."
If he's drowning, I don't have to throw him a lifeline; that's his problem. If he was pushed into the water, I still don't have to help him, but I can punish the guy who pushed him. By taking revenge on those who do wrong, I am "honoring" those who were wronged, but I will not be responsible for not taking action to stop the wrong before it occurred.
This is America's position as a society. This is America's societal outlook.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
No comments:
Post a Comment