Having discovered blogging at the end of last year, I must say that i have been quite impressed with the whole project. Think about it...millions of people all over the world being able to express themselves on a global platform. People writing what they want and being able to put it out for the entire world to see. I like the feeling - it is freedom on an enormous scale, individuality unconfined.
However, i must admit that it is a bit overwhelming. I mean, the checks normally imposed on the writer in the general publishing process do not exist. Who can stop you from publishing hurtful material like hate speech or gossip? No one. No supervisor, editor, nothing. Complete creative autonomy is given to the blog author who can say whatever he pleases.
From personal experience, i must say that the will to publish what is in your heart often supersedes the will to protect private or public interests from publication and analysis. The ability to be who you are and say what is on your mind is not one that should be lightly discarded, and is a crucial tenet of a liberal and democratic society. Having said that, I do believe that the writer should be responsible to write in a way that is not overtly harmful to his vested social interests, and should not write about issues from a prejudiced perspective or in a manner that affects both his social standing and reputation, as well as vested personal and private interests.
That said, it is crucial that people are unafraid to express their opinions about important and controversial issues, and are able to do so without reproach. The benefit of this approach is the creation of an open-minded and progressive society, that is constantly developing for the better.
It is easy to see a contradiction in this: On the one hand, I'm suggesting that people should be aware of the sensitivities of other groups of society and work without offending these sensitive groups, while on the other hand, i'm saying that people should be allowed to have and express opinions about controversial issues that may be offensive to these groups. However, I argue that compromise should be sought on both sides of the argument, that conservative individuals or groups should become less sensitive and adopt a more open minded approach to discussions that are controversial and taboo, and that opinionated liberals be careful so as not to allow their opinion to be construed as hate speech.
My final point is the concession that my view is "Idealistic" in that it is a view that demands the solution to the eternal conflict between reactionary and revolutionary opinons. It is a view, which i am sure most of you will agree, has no basis in reality given the constant disparities of the human condition. However, i must argue that the desire for a balanced and open society/community is a real need. In addition to this, it must be made clear that this desire only exists because of the lack of balance and openness within our socio-communal arena.
Some of the readers of this article may say that this opinion is "left wing", while i believe that it is middle of the road. The fact that people consider this sort of thought to be leftist proves the immense schism in our society between conservatism (religious and political) and liberalism (religious and political). I think that these polarities need to be broken down, rather than reinforced, and I also think that England are going to win the world cup.
