Even in small towns and villages people had privacy inside their houses, farms etc.
No, they really didn't. Homes were tiny compared to modern American homes. Walls were often thin. Windows were often simply openings in the wall with no glass.
That's exactly part of my point. And it's well documented, though it may not seem obvious to modern Americans who tend to project images of modern homes onto the past.
I think modern American houses are still made out of paper. The ability to escape peer pressure was fundamental in progressing society, which would mostly stagnate with extended surveillance. I see no advantages of going back there. If you expect more security, I doubt the wishes will ever fulfill themselves. Would also be quite irrational if we look at the development of violence.
I see no advantages of going back there. If you expect more security, I doubt the wishes will ever fulfill themselves.
I'm going to repeat myself here: I'm not advocating for more surveillance. That isn't at all why I commented on this.
I commented because I think you don't solve a problem by spouting deluded nonsense and pretending the world works differently than it does.
The fact that humans have a long history of living with all the neighbors knowing their business may be part of why surveillance is a thing. Some part of our monkey brains may be going "We really need to know everything about everybody and this makes sense." Understanding that may help people articulate better mental models concerning "What's wrong with this picture and what do we need to do differently?"
I realize people tend to not actually listen to what gets said and they project their baggage and fears onto the words of other people, but I absolutely am not not not not not advocating for more surveillance. I find social stuff fascinating and my experience suggests that understanding the social and psychological context is step one in trying to put a stop to bad patterns and finding better answers.
(Five nots in a row is maybe not the best way to emphasize my point, but we aren't supposed to type in all caps and I don't know what a good solution is.)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say you would do that. "If you expect more security" was meant to be equivalent to "If one expects more security". Probably a language thing, my fault.
But back to the topic I still think surveillance being the historical norm isn't too accurate. For over a decade we got more and more surveillance with the justification of terrorism, civil unrest and security. Similar aspirations are probably numerous throughout history.
I think everyone favors stability at some point, but to me it looks like the classical ambition to remain in control and fears that cannot really explained by a rational risk analysis, even if officials are in a position of responsibility. But I don't think that many people are keen on monitoring others. There is gossip, but that mostly happens due to nearly the same motivation or is just a detached way to reaffirm each other.
It would be pretty easy to get supporters against censorship. Instead these security measures are creating the dissidents it fears so much.
Probably a language thing, the fault of English. ("FTFY")
I'm recovering from a mold exposure, something I'm allergic to. When I'm not coughing up phlegm, I'm conked out and sleeping hard. So I'm done with this discussion, having nothing whatsoever to do with anything anyone here said.
No, they really didn't. Homes were tiny compared to modern American homes. Walls were often thin. Windows were often simply openings in the wall with no glass.
That's exactly part of my point. And it's well documented, though it may not seem obvious to modern Americans who tend to project images of modern homes onto the past.
reply