To block or not to block
I think if Shakespeare were alive and well in 2014 that would become his classic line.
It speaks of all the drama and the heart wrenching decision making process that his other famous line "To Be or Not To Be" once meant to the world.
The blocking dilemna on social media has raised all kinds of etiquette, and face to face issues for the millions that use such forms of communication.
In the old days it was so simple. You either stopped writing to the person or you kept writing to the person. You may go decades without seeing each other, and sharing a cup of tea. Distance made this such so as much as communication methods. Imagine sitting down to write a letter to a third party about your grievance with the first party. You pen the details, etching your page with acidic words with your nib and ink, even a biro or pencil in the 20th century did the same job. If you were very advanced, you may have even typed the letter. Clunk, Clunk, Clunk, Chink with the Return Bar.
All your thoughts tumbled out on to the page. You probably re-read to make sure every t was crossed, and every i dotted, perhaps editing a word here or there for more impact. Signed and placed into an envelope, you addressed it. You knew the persons exact location, the town they lived in and possibly the people they knew there. You knew the words would have been spread around the district regarding the person you were writing about. You knew the risks involved and made an informed decision. There was nothing quick about this process.
Give it a week, or a month depending on where the person lived, and how the mail got there. Was it a horse and carriage? Perhaps a camel? Was a ship needed? Or a train?
The person in the far away place received their mail. Not in their letter box necessarily unless they were in a town. They probably went to the postoffice, had a chat with the staff, their neighbours and friends and received their letter. Mail was so very important. They took it home, to be comfortable, have good light, and a cup of tea and to probably read it aloud to their loved ones. This was an exciting turn in the day receiving mail.
They would read your words, perhaps in disbelief, perhaps they had an idea, or agreed. But it was a very dramatic and long drawn out process. In reading the words you wrote about the other person, they then had to make some decisions of their own. Do they believe the words? Is it an accurate reflection of the person? Or will they turn against you? Throw the letter in the fire and forget it happened perhaps? Or of course they could fold it, put in their coat pocket and take it to town with them next time to show their friends and family. The story spreads.
Now what about the person who was written about? Where do they fit into this? Some may be completely innocent, and nobody would ever believe a word that was written badly about them. All reputations precede their owners just as they are consciously created by their owners. Someone with a bad reputation always will, and will be very angry when they believe someone they had fooled into thinking they were honest, upright citizens had actually seen through them for years. Others who make the effort to do good each day and care for their reputation like they would a treasured pot plant are not effected by the words penned as they rightly believe that their deeds will stand the test.
Has this changed 100 years later? I really don't believe it has.
Someone with a fouled reputation will still be angry, and will still pen negative words about those who they believe have damaged their reputation. They do not look within to ask what their lifestyle, their choices, their words and actions have done to create that reputation. They will simply blame the person who did not fall for their fabricated reputation of honesty and good citizenship. The words penned will be typed onto social media via any number of keyboard options and read immediately by those who choose to read them.
It is instant, it does not take weeks or days to achieve this message being spread. It is the equivalent of writing it in the newspaper in times gone by. Everyone sees it.
So then begs the question to block or not to block? In the olden days it simply meant not replying, not speaking in the main street, or not travelling to another town to visit. Now it requires a little more skill. There are ways of doing it. Blocking social media, electronic and phone media reduces the aggrieved person to only one option face to face. And there nothing has changed. In the olden days those with a guilt complex would leave town, or limit their public appearances so they did not have to deal with those who they knew had their secrets. They blocked themselves. In the old days it was called ostracized.
For those whose reputations go before them and are ones they live up to, they continue to go about their business on social media, and remain as they did a century ago dipping their hat at passers by and hearing the kind words spoken about them. They hold their heads up high.
And for the ones who pen the words about others? That hasn't changed either. When done with good intent and without negativity, bias or lies there is no betrayal other than in the mind of the one who believes they have been wronged. The person writing may be blocked by either person in reality. But always believe that the one who stands by with a good soul will always be an ally. The one who can be referred to as the empty gong will sound off to anyone who hears, but will remain alone in their tower with their gong. They will make a lot of lonely, loud noise wondering why nobody comes to listen. They will as the saying goes make their own bed to lie in.
It speaks of all the drama and the heart wrenching decision making process that his other famous line "To Be or Not To Be" once meant to the world.
The blocking dilemna on social media has raised all kinds of etiquette, and face to face issues for the millions that use such forms of communication.
In the old days it was so simple. You either stopped writing to the person or you kept writing to the person. You may go decades without seeing each other, and sharing a cup of tea. Distance made this such so as much as communication methods. Imagine sitting down to write a letter to a third party about your grievance with the first party. You pen the details, etching your page with acidic words with your nib and ink, even a biro or pencil in the 20th century did the same job. If you were very advanced, you may have even typed the letter. Clunk, Clunk, Clunk, Chink with the Return Bar.
All your thoughts tumbled out on to the page. You probably re-read to make sure every t was crossed, and every i dotted, perhaps editing a word here or there for more impact. Signed and placed into an envelope, you addressed it. You knew the persons exact location, the town they lived in and possibly the people they knew there. You knew the words would have been spread around the district regarding the person you were writing about. You knew the risks involved and made an informed decision. There was nothing quick about this process.
Give it a week, or a month depending on where the person lived, and how the mail got there. Was it a horse and carriage? Perhaps a camel? Was a ship needed? Or a train?
The person in the far away place received their mail. Not in their letter box necessarily unless they were in a town. They probably went to the postoffice, had a chat with the staff, their neighbours and friends and received their letter. Mail was so very important. They took it home, to be comfortable, have good light, and a cup of tea and to probably read it aloud to their loved ones. This was an exciting turn in the day receiving mail.
They would read your words, perhaps in disbelief, perhaps they had an idea, or agreed. But it was a very dramatic and long drawn out process. In reading the words you wrote about the other person, they then had to make some decisions of their own. Do they believe the words? Is it an accurate reflection of the person? Or will they turn against you? Throw the letter in the fire and forget it happened perhaps? Or of course they could fold it, put in their coat pocket and take it to town with them next time to show their friends and family. The story spreads.
Now what about the person who was written about? Where do they fit into this? Some may be completely innocent, and nobody would ever believe a word that was written badly about them. All reputations precede their owners just as they are consciously created by their owners. Someone with a bad reputation always will, and will be very angry when they believe someone they had fooled into thinking they were honest, upright citizens had actually seen through them for years. Others who make the effort to do good each day and care for their reputation like they would a treasured pot plant are not effected by the words penned as they rightly believe that their deeds will stand the test.
Has this changed 100 years later? I really don't believe it has.
Someone with a fouled reputation will still be angry, and will still pen negative words about those who they believe have damaged their reputation. They do not look within to ask what their lifestyle, their choices, their words and actions have done to create that reputation. They will simply blame the person who did not fall for their fabricated reputation of honesty and good citizenship. The words penned will be typed onto social media via any number of keyboard options and read immediately by those who choose to read them.
It is instant, it does not take weeks or days to achieve this message being spread. It is the equivalent of writing it in the newspaper in times gone by. Everyone sees it.
So then begs the question to block or not to block? In the olden days it simply meant not replying, not speaking in the main street, or not travelling to another town to visit. Now it requires a little more skill. There are ways of doing it. Blocking social media, electronic and phone media reduces the aggrieved person to only one option face to face. And there nothing has changed. In the olden days those with a guilt complex would leave town, or limit their public appearances so they did not have to deal with those who they knew had their secrets. They blocked themselves. In the old days it was called ostracized.
For those whose reputations go before them and are ones they live up to, they continue to go about their business on social media, and remain as they did a century ago dipping their hat at passers by and hearing the kind words spoken about them. They hold their heads up high.
And for the ones who pen the words about others? That hasn't changed either. When done with good intent and without negativity, bias or lies there is no betrayal other than in the mind of the one who believes they have been wronged. The person writing may be blocked by either person in reality. But always believe that the one who stands by with a good soul will always be an ally. The one who can be referred to as the empty gong will sound off to anyone who hears, but will remain alone in their tower with their gong. They will make a lot of lonely, loud noise wondering why nobody comes to listen. They will as the saying goes make their own bed to lie in.
Comments
Post a Comment