Green Requiem

what is a diaspora i hear you say!

the dictionary definition of diaspora mainly has to do with the cultural separation of a group of people from their original homeland (here). and while that is a good and valid definition, the word has now been applied to a lot more things than just that.
there are many online diaspora, in fact, the internet has really furthered the whole notion of a diaspora, with the introduction of being able to chat and communicate with people from all parts of the world. chat rooms and message forums have been around since the start of the public internet in the mid 90's, and nowadays there are message forums for nearly everything.

so what is a diaspora exactly, in the broad sense of the term? simply a group of people, a community who share a common linkage, or interest, who are geographically separated.

i am a part of several of them (in the form of message forums), including one for a web comic, one a friends, and one called Gush.

but, the question then stands. is Gush (or those other online message forums) actually diaspora? i personally think it is, as we are a group of people who are linked by a common interest, and we are geographically separated...

i read an article about online religious diaspora, and the author wrote "People are going online to get information about, discuss, and argue about religious beliefs and practices, as well as to share their religious feelings and concerns, post prayer requests, chat, and even conduct and participate in online religious rituals. (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/helland.html)."

Is ePorn worse than crack? well... is it?

in some ways, the answer would be yes, and in some ways the answer would be no.
in a lot of ways, they are two different forms of addiction. one is a physical addiction, where the physical responses of the body crave the drug. the other is mainly a psychological addiction where the mind causes the body to crave the thing.

however, a physical addiction is a lot easier to be 'cured of' than that of a psychological addiction, because you can get the drug out of your system, but to get the addiction out of your mind requires a lot more time and effort on the addicted persons behalf.

while there is an understanding in society that cocaine is worse than porn, simply because it is illegal, and you are seen to get more addicted to it, does not mean that internet porn is any better.
in fact, it could almost be seen as worse because it is more easy to access. "

The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviors," Layden said. "To have drugs pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups know how to use it -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind" (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772).

i don't think that it should be discussed as to which is worse than the other, as both crack and porn are addictive substances. and so in that way, both are as bad as each other. porn is more easy to access, and harder to break from the habit from. where as crack can have disastrous consequences from what could be done while in the altered state.

it is not a good thing to be mastered by anything. or controlled by anyone. so in that way, all addictions are bad. self control is something to strive for.

James Gardner defines extremism as being a dogmatic intolerance (whether this is expressed through violent means), an incline towards an inflexible obedience towards an accepted authority. and also being available to be shaped by a common ideology, and a sense of group unity.

this is a good general definition of extremism, as it allows most things to be addressed. it also doesn't (like a lot of other dictionary definitions of extremism) point directly and mainly at politics.

i think a part of extremism, is the fact that people do not question what they are being told, or what they believe. or understand how it effects the rest of society. they do not have an informed point of view.
but, to seek to get rid of all extremists, one i don't think it could be possible, and two, it is important for people to express their views about things they are interested in, or passionate about. a part of democracy is the right to be entitled to having our own opinions and views about things and not being forced to believe what everyone else does.

however, there are common norms and values that are shared by the majority of society. one of the different perspectives in sociology is functionalism. and a part of their discussions on deviance is explaining that some deviance is a good and healthy part of society. (deviance being the breaking of the shared consensus of norms and values). some deviance strengthens the societies understanding on their norms and values, because they are being challenged. of course, only some levels of deviance are seen as normal.

i myself, use small forms of rocking the boat. small forms of extremist behaviour. (something which i see as perhaps a pretty important part of a democratic society to be able to challenge the norms and values of that society). i think it is good to be challenged to understand each others, and our own beliefs and thoughts about the world. if that is a reaction against an extremist group (and, trust me, there are a few out there. particularly on the internet) then that group is causing some good.
to be able to be informed is a good thing. however, one of the above characteristics of the Gardener definition is an inflexible obedience towards an authority. where the people are not encouraged to think for themselves...

after reading the article by David Kupelian, i was a little shocked and offended about his scathing report on the evils of youth culture.
it is true that he is mainly talking about american youth culture, but i feel that it has been generalised to be all western youth. apart from the fact that Kupelian tangents off from specific youth culture, to talk more generally about, what he sees as the evils of modern american people, he is still very adamant about the youth he see being evil and depraved.

while, initially, i wanted to disregard everything he said as a fundamentalist republican extreme right winger, the article (and part one of the article too) does express his views.

his main contention with the article is to say that todays youth culture are doing whatever they feel like... and not really caring about the consequences. grouping genital and breast peircing with ear and nose peircing. tounge splitting, suspension and scaring your body with tatooing. satanism (worshipping satan) and 'bug catching' (that is, having sex with people with AIDS, in order to get the disease) with the islamic jihad.

he claims that the way out, the way to preserve the good "true American culture" is to create a subculture of your own. and the way to do this, is to home school your children. i must admit, that i laughed out loud when i read that. you can try and remove and protect your children from the world, but they will alweays be affected by it.

i wont really go into the whole christian debate, apart from state that not all christians hold views like Kupelian. His is a very right wing, extreme fundamentalist view... and indeed, he is entitled to hold it.

perhaps that is something that is part of our current youth culture. the supposed willingness to accept other peoples views as their own, as long as they don't try and force it onto anyone else. the current youth culture has access to the most information, different views, beliefs, world understandings than any generation before it. we might not follow in our parents or grandparents footsteps any more, but we are paving our own way forward.

or perhaps, i too, have been brainwashed by the evils of youth culture into taking on a more optimistic, utopian view of present reality. we, as a culture, have a lot of flaws, but i don't think that yearning back to the past is any way to move forward. which is what Kupelian seems to be suggesting.