Anyway, it's 12:06 and we're discussing Chapter 6. Commercial enterprise is convincing people that they need to be prepared for the imminence of a terrorist attack. Blogging in real time is really hard.
Pretty much, in my own words, I think that chapter 6 is about how people are being fed fear in order to promote a capitalist agenda. People are being "protected" by the goods sold by the perpetrators of this culture of fear. People are afraid of the world, and as such they gate themselves in and adhere to ridiculous rules because they think it protects them. There is voluntary gentrification of spaces in order to protect ourselves. Tim is a pretty smart dude.
Members of fringe society are pushed out by the desires of whitebread, scared, wealthy people. (Times Square)
In Chapter 7,
Politicians use a culture of fear in order to better control the masses. In the 1970s, there was almost equal unrest, yet it seems that people did not rely on the state to implement technology among the population in order to protect them. Less rights=more protection? Apparently! If politicians have access to the databases that marketing firms collect, they have almost limitless knowledge of the population, allowing for easier control. Elections are tailored to the individual desires of voters, creating little bonds to the actual beliefs of the politicians.
A lot of this chapter touches on what we were talking about last class: people don't actually know what they want.
Politics is like a game of chess in which the politician (and the advisors) make calculated moves based on their opponents (the voters) predispositions.
How does the data we transmit onto facebook have application to other people? (Beyond our direct network of friends)
12:20...discussion is winding down...what else should we talk about?
There are more members of Al Quadea now then there are following 9-11!
Do terrorists use modern technology better than terrorists?
Brian seems to think so, argues that they use it for more flexible uses. Technology can be used for a variety of different uses, we use it in one way, they use it for a different reason.
12:23....we're out of here.
It's really hard to blog while attempting to have a discussion by the way.
ReplyDeletePretty much, in my own words, I think that chapter 6 is about how people are being fed fear in order to promote a capitalist agenda. People are being "protected" by the goods sold by the perpetrators of this culture of fear. People are afraid of the world, and as such they gate themselves in and adhere to ridiculous rules because they think it protects them. ---> We buy insurance on our lives and processions, because of this natural fear of what we are not in control of. Why is there reason to criticize protecting against what we do not know could happen?
ReplyDeleteI feel safe. In terms of information about me online, I am not sharing anything that would make me vulnerable. Mistakes can occur however, we home addresses are shared, allows for someone to pinpoint, name, face, to physical location.
ReplyDeleteDo terrorists use modern technology better ---> sure if their goal is to use technology to its fullest potential. Just as a architect uses a pencil better than a non-architect, and a race car drives a car better than a non-racer.
ReplyDeleteShould we not use what we our tools?
Perhaps individuals could use their 2,000 dollar Macbook Pros to create their own encryptions to protect themselves, that would create some competition.
People could also drive saver and they might never need to use their insurance, which they spend so much on.
But there are unexpected consequences and effects that we have no control over. We always have fear. It is a perpetual force for progress, not a paralyzer.
Humans can achieve anything they put their mind too.
why do you think discussion was only 15-18 minutes?
ReplyDeleteI thought that having to blog and talk could disrupt the belief that multitasking is possible and desirable.
John's comments here are interesting as a way of blending discussion and blogging--I wonder if the class had been 5 hours long if more of this kind of interaction would have developed.
I don't know what it means to say that terrorists use the technology better--what does this mean?
I feel as if class discussion was that short because we just gave our summaries of the chapters, went off on small tangents and decided it was time to leave. It was hard to apply and discuss the book without a central figure who was leading the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the terrorists: I guess better isn't the word, but I think the point Brian was trying to make was that technology is remarkably flexible in use. Terrorists have been known to use cell phones as detonation devices, whereas we use them to play angry birds and make phone calls. The use of technology in an unintended manner shows a certain mastery or expertise in it's use.
Martin--do you think that the lack of a central figure is a problem in discussions online? or a problem for political organization in turbulent media environments? that's a theme that Terranova and I both discuss; one reason for the class experiment was to see if I could replicate that phenomenon so that students would find the position more convincing (so, it's like an experiential critique of the argument that participatory media is good for democracy).
ReplyDeleteStill, I also thought it likely that at this point in the term, having worked together and had discussion modeled, it would have been a bit more productive than 15-18 minutes. Oh well.
Thanks for explaining the technology point--flexibility seems like a good way to put it.
"Do terrorists use modern technology better than terrorists?"
ReplyDeleteFreudian slip? :)