After guilt, the deluge

Speaking for myself, it's my lifelong experience of interaction with and empathy for others that have formed my conscience and my 'inner limits'. Indeed, I feel 'wrong' if I go past those limits.

What exactly is supposed to be the problem with the NYTimes article, other than the guy taking "stalker pictures," and the one woman and her boyfriend posting a sex vid? (Tacky...) The vast majority of the behaviors described in the NYTimes article are innocuous - away messages, cutesy profiles, blogs (with much of the content sanitized to remove personal associations.) Ironically, the "life in the public sector" is precisely what people say they miss about the "good old days" in a small town, where everyone knew everyone else's business. Only now the big small town is the world. Through my own blogging I've met people all over the world; had some great exchanges of ideas; had a lot of fun. What is wrong with this, except taht someone who prefers a paper diary with a little pickable lock is uncomfortable?

Stalin and Hitler did not come from an open, permissive society--far from it, their lives as children were full of guilt and punishment. But not becasuse they had actually transgressed a reasonable boundary, but rather because they were irrationally abused by their parents. No one can stand being treated in a crazy, inhumane way by those supposed to love them. It's not an open society driving today's kids to openness (if you can really make such a sweeping generalization); it's more likely an uncaring society. I think, Rod, you have causality going the wrong way--making sure people feel guilty doesn't make them responsible, it's instilling a feeling of responsibility by showing how to care and be responsible that can make us feel that we need to do better. Guilt accomplishes nothing and is a terrible way to try to control people---which isn't going to work either, insofar as it does not make caring people. To instill responsiblity you must start with respect, caring, and love--not heaps of guilt.

Rod, You kinda messed up a very important topic with a very weak example to call a monstrous phenomenon. I suggest that readers use sigaliris' and Erin's posts to get past that weak example, and look at the danger we truly face. We see the symptoms all around us, yet we do nothing to address the underlying causes. We declare zero-tolerance for [fill-in-the-blank]. Whoop-di-do. Since when has teaching a child that a behavior is wrong after the fact been an effective way to address it? Things like racial bigotry, kicking the weak while they're down, or just plain cheating on any level have to be demonstrated as being wrong, not (just) taught. Part of that demonstration is a society that stands up, as a group, and both denounces and rejects those behaviors in direct, aggressive ways. For decades we have been retreating from this ethic, one small step at a time. My measuring stick is the bullying behaviors: 40 years ago, a public bully would get set upon (sometimes even physically) for bullying someone. Nowadays, bullies are everywhere, and their behaviors have become not only expected, but the norm for everyone. Rod, I share your outrage, but I have to ask with all due respect: where the f**k have you been before now?

Just because you've never heard of me until this blog doesn't mean I haven't been doing my bit. You are quite right, and I apologize for my overreaction. That was a most regretable way to express my feelings. The adjustment to my expressed point then is this: at what point do you distinguish between consensual activity and the general definition of guilt? The general (and arguably oversimplified) way to put what you are saying is: exhibitionism is bad, and the person partaking of it is bad. Your example remains weak, from my POV. I certainly have personal axes around the bullying counter-example I offer, but I contend that it's the everyday interactions we need to focus on, not the narrow and impersonal focus of an online phenomenon. I should add, at this point, that I agree that the "sensibility" you and the article describe is deliterious; I cannot join you in calling it monstrous, at least not with the rest of the "sensibilities" I see.

Rod writes: The "monstrous phenomenon" is not the advent of blogs or online communities, and it surprises me that I would have to use a blog to point that out. The m.p. of which I speak is the sensibility reported in the NY magazine story, a sensibility that's apparently generational, in which young people are perfectly willing to violate their own privacy by putting their most intimate thoughts and deeds online, in a permanent record for all to see. It's not that online communities exist -- they do, and I've long been part of several -- but the kinds of things people are now putting online, and the revolutionary, unprecedented change in consciousness regarding privacy that the new technology is bringing about. However, this willing (and it is very willing; no one is forcing young people to do this) abnegation of privacy is precisely what people will get, were we to return to true "village" or "small town" life. Keep in mind that until the early 20th century in rural France, for instance, the bride was still expected to hang out the sheet the morning after her wedding night, so the whole village could see the proof of her virginity. Rose Wilder Lane left Mansfield, MO, for many reasons - but one was the petty, intrusive, gossipy nature of small town life, where everything was known about everyone else - and if it wasn't, you can be sure they were going to find out. This is the same phenomenon with the i-village. To me, the phenomenon makes perfect sense. This is the coming-of-age of the Playdate Generation: the kids who grew up in the Littleton, COs of the USA, with their nonexistent sidewalks; their social and physical isolation; their car culture; their hyper-organized after-school lives. This is their way to break free and meet people spontaneously, on their own. Of course it's going to involve technology, and of course it's going to involve the shedding of "privacy" - because "privacy" isn't what they want - friendship and connection are what they want. And for some, yes, some sex too. Also, the younger people are not afraid of "predators" or other bugaboos. They trust each other. Perhaps this is stupid - but perhaps not. The greatest dangers to people come from other people they know IRL. For instance, a woman is far more likely to be murdered by an irate ex than by someone she meets online (especially someone of her own sex.) Many people all through the world live their whole lives without an upper-middle-class notion of "privacy" (like the poor in India who may live their whole lives literally out on the street.) Some anthropologists think that language evolved largely as a way for people to talk about one another, to socially interact. Most of human communication is pretty low in content anyway - made up mostly of reinforcement, social "fluff," reassurance or teasing. So is most internet communication too, especially on young peoples' sites. Most people are social, especially the young. This is their outlet.