aesmael

They say you're dangerous, unpredictable, that you can't be trusted. That you lash out without warning.

They don't know you, don't pay attention to you - listen and watch the signs you give. Not hearing your whisper they get your shouts. If they cared and treated you as you, took time to get to know. Maybe they'd get along like we do.

Saw some folk talking about the forgiveability or lack thereof of Darth Vader, particularly wert the murder of children.

The prequel films had not been made at the time Return of the Jedi had been released, and I don't believe Lucas' claims of having planned the whole thing out from the beginning, so usually I am not interested in judging the first three Star Wars films on the basis of actions or emotions depicted in the prequels. I also don't recall Luke saying at any point that he forgave Vader for his past actions, prequel or otherwise. What I remember is Luke saying he still senses good in him, which I interpret as the potential or desire to turn away from evil and to do good.

My feeling is the idea of Vader being redeemed is not that his single act of casting down the emperor, but that it represents an internal change and a commitment on his part. That, had Vader survived, he would have devoted himself to doing good and to make what restitution he could for the evils of the empire. But his single act in the throne room doesn't make him good in itself, doesn't undo the evils of his past. It is a symbol of the change in the character and the new path he is taking, as is his ghost's appearance as Anakin later on.

I don't think it's a matter of having been forgiven and I don't think the evil Vader did in the past is or can be undone.

I do think there's a potential term collision between redemption as in 'how fans feel about a character' and redemption as in 'character internals reflected in externals'. I also suspect these opinions of mine are strongly influenced by the surrounding Christian cultural context; certainly I've had to work at not using Christian-sourced terminology in the writing of this post and probably missed some nonetheless.

Sex?

A while ago I wrote a bit about erotic writing being perceived as less worthy and even shameful, and of resolving to defy that stigma by being not secretive concerning the writing of it. More recently and prompted by conversation I have been wondering if I ought do the same with sex generally.

To be more open? It seems a fair goal to me for a topic that is sold to us as something to regard shamefully and reluctantly. However it is also true (and perhaps because of the ways we are taught to regard it) that sex is thus a subject many would not be comfortable seeing discussed as broadly and casually as other topics... I suspect I would be discomfited by that. Depending also what precisely was being talked about, I would anyway not want to share without discrimination. I think that is not a sharp conflict with a philosophy of openness.

Practically speaking. I had been using a filter for discussing sexual matters, which people had to request access to. I might swap that policy and include people on the basis of whether I am comfortable speaking in front of them - which, mind, would mainly be based on whether I had seen them express an interest in such matters, and those posts would still be behind cuts, and anyone who said they didn't want to see them would be disincluded.

Hm. Does that sound still open? Writing that out I felt it portrayed talk of sex and sexuality as something people need to be shielded from by steps I wouldn't take for just about any other topic. Explicit, gory violence? Maybe, would have to be relatively extreme. And yet there are certainly situations in which writings about sex could cause problems, so if for no other reason than that it makes sense to mark content advisories and give the option to defer access so far as I am able. I cannot after all control the circumstances in which others might read what I write (beyond a line), and it seems a likely enough circumstance that people might benefit from at least a content cut to make them well worth using.

Placing sexual content behind a (labelled) cut, okay. That makes sense. And a filter? Looking at the 'friends list' for my account right now it seems I have purged probably everyone I would be uncomfortable speaking in front of, so for my own comfort I do not currently need to use a specialised filter. And other people probably don't need more than a cut for their own utility and comfort. However, I cannot guarantee this will always be the case. With LiveJournal, everyone I 'friend' for reading also has access to my friends-locked, unfiltered posts and I might at some point subscribe to reading someone who I would not feel comfortable having access to that aspect of my life. Nor can I guarantee there will not be shifts in my comfort levels concerning the people currently flisted. So it makes sense for me to use finer controls than all-access / no-access.

I think attempting a participatory role in decreasing social shame and stigma concerning sexual matters is something worth doing. I am not comfortable talking about all things with all people, and although I think some degree of that is due to socialisation which I have just declared deserves opposition my existing feelings and comfort levels remain. I also believe I have the right to determine when I will push the limits of what I am comfortable with and when I will not, so... we shall see if anything more visible than the attitude with which I approach posting changes. It is not as if this is a subject I write about especially often.

To describe treatment of a person as reprehensible, often we liken it to accepted ways of treating children. When we think a person's behaviour needs to be more controlled, we liken em to a child.

Because I think how we regard and behave toward children culturally is itself reprehensible I try not to compare others to children in order to dismiss or degrade them. I try not to use comparisons such as 'treated like a child' unless I am also making these points, because I think unexamined, uncomplicated use of those references reinforces attitudes that such treatment is appropriate for children and only wrong when applied to older people.

For a few months now at least I have seen several people decrying the idea of 'thought crime', that some thoughts, desires, ideas, etc. are wrong in and of themselves, immoral and perhaps deserving of some sort of punishment even if they lead to know action.

It makes sense to me. A thought in itself harms no one, is not going to lead to harm unless acted on (or inacted on). There is no need to police or outlaw thoughts because people are free to think whatever they like; our only concern is to prevent people's rights from being infringed on by others.

Except... it seems that only makes sense under particular moral or ethical systems. If I value things like personal freedom and rights, protection from harm by others. There are other systems under which thoughts can be considered effectively criminal, even punished.

If I believed some thoughts were damaging to the person thinking them and that people ought to be protected from themselves, it might make sense to take some action against that person's will (frex: suicidal thoughts).

If I believed some thoughts had a corrosive effect on the morality and self-control of the person thinking them, and that it is right or imperative to act to prevent possible harm then the idea of wrong or bad thoughts which need to be controlled or cured will make sense to me. Examples: rape fantasies or paedophilia.

If I believe some thoughts constitute immoral acts in themselves I might think that is a matter of community or personal responsibility. Possibly something for the person to deal with emself but possibly it would be a matter for the community to respond to, perhaps attempting to condition the person away from those thoughts, prohibiting their exercise or otherwise attempting to persuade em eir mind is wrong and needs to change. Example:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So it can make a lot of sense to seek to control or restrict the minds of others to a moral end. Other religions like Buddhism also have a conception of thoughts as able to be right or wrong, although I think that is treated more definitely as a personal rather than a social matter.

It doesn't make sense if we are concerned only with whether a person's actions harm others or infringe on their rights, and not with that person's thoughts. If that is not the stance we begin with, however, I doubt it's assertion would do much to sway our opinion. It seems likely we would need to address instead the reasons for holding a particular perspective initially before attempting to persuade people to adopt a differing perspective, but ethical / moral persuasion remains a great mystery to me.

"Why do you want to X?"
"Because my friends are and participating with them will provide us with shared memories and socialisation which will serve to further strengthen the bond of our friendship."

It seems contradictory to me, even hypocritical, that children are taught they ought to want to do things with other children but that they ought not do something because their friends are. I think what people are really after is ostensibly to teach from a young age the ability to recognise harmful or undesired actions and be in possession of the capacity to refuse participation in these even in the face of social pressure.

Except that parents or other authoritative people in a young person's life tend to want em to acquiesce to the pressures they place on em to engage in activities they approve of and to avoid those they disapprove of, often without particular reference to whether the person in question shares this desire. So we end up with apparently contradictory messages, such as that excursion in primary school in which teachers were insistent that I come join the other students in watching a video on why conformity is bad, rather than being off doing my own thing. I found that hilarious.

A certain degree of cooperation is necessary, so far as I can see, to keep a society functional, but I do not recall being taught this. Instead we get the message that we should do as everyone else is expected to, but not do what everyone else is doing, and thereby be anything we want to be.

Let's turn this around. Instead of[1] teaching people to resist peer pressure, let's teach people not to exert social pressure to coerce participation from the unwilling. Why must the onus be always on the victim to avoid being victimised? Why not teach people not to abuse the power and influence they have over others?


[1] As well as, really, but I like having a corrective footnote