Ganesh, the fact that it may not be accurately reported or may even be a piece of fiction is of no consequence - we all discuss what happens in fiction, and inaccurate reportage, all the time, and we speculate on the motivations and morality of characters' behaviour in both.
It isn't "of no consequence" at all if we are then going on to generalise to non-fictional situations or seriously attempt to put ourselves mentally in those situations. Speculation is fine, but if we're criticising others on their response to the source material, then it's valid to express distrust of that source material. In this case, we're handed a morality tale which is almost insultingly simplistic in terms of the tropes it hands us. We're encouraged to project certain attributes onto the ciphers within the parable, and thus lead to a particular moral/emotional conclusion.
I have a problem with these ciphers, because I don't think they bear a great deal of scrutiny. Additionally, as I've said, I find the whole business of castigating others for failing to produce the requisite theoretical moral response problematic, because I'm aware that, as humans, we tend to underestimate the power of situation to override the moral certainties we happily espouse when not in-situ.
I don't think any of this means we shouldn't speculate, but I think we should be wary of drawing particularly strong conclusions from such speculation - particularly when it's based on such a paper-thin scenario as this one.
What you are basically saying is that while "clearly the seated male should have given up his seat", nobody should take action to make that happen if that involves bucking social conventions of propriety or the proper 'place' of children in relation to adults.
No, that is not what I am "basically saying" - which kind of illustrates my point about generalising from a hypothetical scenario. I said I don't think 10-year-olds should, generally speaking, issue commands to adults or call them "motherfucker". They certainly shouldn't kick adults on the shins in this kind of situation.
I say this because, much as we might romanticise the "refreshingly simple" moral compass of a 10-year-old, the situation here is much more complex than has been portrayed. We know nothing about the seated man other than the few broad strokes which have been provided to give the impression that he's a selfish, plutocratic bastard. He might as well be wearing a black hat, or being booed on his entrance. He might have severe ostoearthritis, like Gypsy Lantern, or have brittle bone disease (mind those shins!) or have just been bereaved or diagnosed with a fatal illness. Anything, really, but within this simplistic little parable, he's simply the Bad Guy.
One would expect a child not to think of any of this, and to view the situation in simple Good/Bad terms, but I don't think that polarising viewpoint is necessarily to be applauded (either metaphorically or, in this case, presumably literally, Hollywood style, by all the rhubarbing onlookers who haven't given up their own seats).
It strikes me that this is a fairly common attitude which can be seen applied to a variety of issues across the board - by which I mean not "this board" and certainly not any one poster, but one does hear it all the time - "I don't want the government to do X but I don't like those horrible protestors", "I don't want people to post hatespeech on my board, but I don't think anyone should be mean to them if they do"...
So now our little heartwarming tale has become generalised to a "fairly common attitude" across Barbelith. I'd disagree; I think you're reaching, overgeneralising and oversimplifying. In doing so, you risk reducing a variety of complex attitudes and situations (protests, hatespeech) to the level of a homespun homily-by-email, in which the protagonists are conveniently simple ciphers.
Ultimately, it depends whether one aspires to the worldview of a 10-year-old child. I'd beware of such romanticising of 'simplicity': I actually see this sort of yearning for 'simple' moral certainties as profoundly conservative. |
