You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #60: Nope, Can't Agree. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-02-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Nope, Can't Agree.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think "spying" is fair. Spying implies an expectation of privacy on the part of the spyee. When you're walking down the street, you have no expectation of privacy. You may not know others are watching you through a telescope, but you know you're being seen. You know you don't have the freedom to be CANDID; you are putting on a publicly acceptable face. Presumably, you are not picking your nose, or popping a zit; you most likely have made sure that all of your private areas are covered, and that the image you're presenting of yourself is the image you want people to see. You are not in a private setting, and you know it. You cannot be spied upon; you expect to be seen.

It is disingenuous to suggest that just because a person would react negatively to finding out that another person had been watching them, that the watcher has done something wrong. If I were sitting in a bar and my crack was showing for the better part of an hour, and I didn't know it, but the people behind me were laughing and giggling about it, they would not be "wrong". What would be "wrong" is if one of them got up, poked me in the crack, and then told me that they had been watching it for the better part of an hour.

That actually happened to me Friday night. I was pissed.

The point is, it was the intrusiveness of the woman that was wrong. What she said and did embarrassed me. I do not fault her for giggling over my crack (I've been that juvenile myself). I fault her for involving me in her nonsense. Had she and her friends merely looked and laughed, I'd have been none the wiser. No harm, no foul. Also, this woman did not poke me in the crack and tell me about it maliciously, she actually thought I'd be good-natured about it; she thought she was letting me in on the joke. She was, of course, very drunk. So, of course, was I, which is probably why I WASN'T good-natured about, as I normally would have been.

Interacting with people means that you will be seen. You have no right to your image as they see it, unless they attempt to exploit it financially. Thats just the way it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC