Thursday Takes Down Privacy
Most of us prefer to keep in the bedroom what happens in the bedroom. In part because we somehow believe that what does happen in our bedroom is potentially interesting to those outside of the bedroom. In further part because what makes what happens in our bedroom interesting to us is the thought that it may be interesting to others. Still, mounting spy camera’s in bedrooms is not very widespread. Nevertheless the idea is common enough to inspire a strong sense of privacy in all of us.
I don’t think we should take issue with this sense of privacy. Most of what we do is uninteresting and that is as it should be. The uninteresting should not be defiled by creating a YouTube (non-)event out of it. Specifically because it would be making yet another thing measurable in (lack of) hits. Let’s protect the idea that our uninteresting stuff might potentially be interesting. We are entitled to some self-deception and insofar as privacy is needed to protect our right to it, I’m all for privacy.
But as always there is a but: 99 times out of a 100 when somebody talks about privacy nowadays it’s a rich prick who just wants to make sure nobody knows his net worth because that would make him a rich prick minus a certain percentage (if you are a rich prick ‘minus a percentage’ can be applied to whilst the ‘rich prick’ bit remaining invariable). This leaves the left defenseless because privacy traditionally is the only basis to form resistance against oppression. The concept is holy (although for sure in an oppressive regime there is never a right to privacy but just a duty to secrecy) so the rich pricks can go hijack the concept and put it to work for them together with the rest of their wage slaves.
So let’s just kill the concept privacy altogether and replace it with more accurate things like for instance: ‘It is criminal to put spy camera’s in bedrooms.’ and ‘When faced with an oppressive regime secrecy is not only legitimate but an outright responsibility with respect to getting rid of the oppressive regime.’
I mean I liked the princess’ boobs and would actually have liked to see the princes’ glockenspiel (I confess I surf to sleaze websites once in a while and I confess to being curious) but they should by all means prosecute the bastards who stole an uninteresting moment from these people and made it into an interesting non-event. On the other hand, it’s quite OK in the bigger scheme of things that we know that it is human for soldiers to go a little crazy after a turn and it’s certainly not bad to see that it is all right not to have the tits of a porn star. And preventing any of this with all the might of the system also would deprive us of the telltale Romney moments where rich pricks do what rich pricks do under the cover of privacy.
After all, some of us are lucky to live in a not-so-oppressive society but even those of us who are best of in this regard still have the burden of oppression of rich pricks. Not only should the rich pricks not be protected by privacy laws but it also should be clear that the violators of privacy in this case should be protected by the right to secrecy.
So let’s just get rid of privacy because it has boomeranged in our faces and we pay every day in hard currency for what all rich pricks can get away with in not paying under the banner of protecting their privacy.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.