I'm going to try to restate your question: "If 'dehumanization' is the act of removing control, would removing the controls others have over their perspective of you be dehumanizing?" The key is perspective. I am interested in shaping the "I" of this space. My identity, my self-image is the object here. I can't stop you from keeping a Moleskine with notes about every thing I say - but it isn't built into the system. More importantly, your notes do not become a part of the gestalt - it is impossible for them to be a part of my identity. That's why doxing is a powerful weapon, by the way - it's identity assassination. You can be the Pimp Daddy of all Reddit but drop dox and you're just a middle-aged IT consultant in Texas. The image that you have built for yourself becomes replaced by the image that you're trying to escape.
You should work on that. For the good of everyone. "Removal of control" as "dehumanization" because conscience is about choice. When we punish someone, we remove the choices available to them. See: prison, grounding teenagers, revocation of phone privileges, making children stand in the corner. Conversely, as children develop and become more conscious of their actions, we increase their responsibility. We give them greater autonomy, greater choice. When a person is not given control over something they feel entitled to control, they resent it as condescending, as controlling, as infantilizing. When a person has control taken away from them, they internalize it against a slight against their conscience and autonomy. Gun control in the United States is not controversial because millions of Tea Partiers wish to overthrow the government by force. Gun Control in the United States is controversial because millions of Tea Partiers feel that they should be entrusted with the decision to not rise up against Obama the Secret Muslim. None of them will. But as soon as you revoke their option they begin to suspect that you're moving against them. Makes sense?
Ok I see more perspective now. So: Let's say I lived somewhere, and in this place, I behaved a certain way. I was then stigmatized for this behavior and I was forced into behaving a certain way. Then, after leaving this place and entering a new one, the same patterns of behavior I was forced into were still being exhibited by my own habits, even though the conditions for said behavior were no longer directly present. Would my subsequent action of removing these controls within be dehumanizing? Would it be an act of dehumanization to remove myself from the controls of my own perception?
Edit: I was just asked for my opinions of Hubski as a new user, and I hope to answer this person's questions shortly. This topic is exactly where I want to answer all of their questions, and is why I'm asking kleinbl00 these questions
IF: you are human THEN: you are consciously acting in such a way that you are being retaliated against. I'm not big on hypotheticals, particularly vague ones. The world is an empirical place and I believe there is more to learn in discussing "what happened" than "what could happen." I was contributing to a discussion about UI choice. You seem to wish to discuss a Kafka novel.
I am only trying to give an example to better explain my initial question. I'm trying to help you understand the fundamental nature of how I am seeing your appraisal of control in context to humans. I'm coming from a mindset that looks at anything, from an avatar, to a list of things you are "interested in" as nothing more than external objects. I don't see anything humanistic about being forced into controlling your behavior and having freedom taken away from you for not adhering to the person forcing your hand. Unless you believe we are in a constant state of controlling and being controlled. If you don't want something so vague, fine: I was stigmatized in a Greek society at a university, mostly due to my actions and how they generated a lot of attention. I loved shredding on the piano, dancing like no one was watching, goofing around, and asking a lot of questions. Let's just stick to the piano though: I would play the piano. I absolutely love improvising. This would catch the attention of females. Now, I've been playing the piano for nearly all my life, and I do not play the piano fundamentally because I love the attention. When, on a nightly basis, a crowd of women would eventually surround the piano, a few things would happen. One thing led to another and I was cut off. I was turned into an object, as nothing more than a mass manipulator of others. I was marshaled, like a dog, into shutting my soul up. I was punished, I had my freedoms taken away from me. Eventually. I started getting so sick that I was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward and subjected to a cocktail of soul sucking, identity killing drugs. But I'll tell you, it was a lot easier to accept the world as black and white on anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and amphetamine salts. Now I am back in the environment I came from, afraid to walk out the front door half of the time. I have been utterly shredded by the controls within my own mind, both fabricated, and cultivated out of my own psyche. So, would it be dehumanizing for me to remove the externalities which are controlling my own mind, specifically the ones that are controlling the way I perceive things. In this case, like someone's avatar, or what they are "interested" in?
Wow! Look at that! Give a man something concrete to discuss and all of a sudden the sentences flow like water from a mountain spring! So: 1) You love playing the piano. 2) Women love you loving playing the piano. 3) Complications ensued Here's what followed: - "I was turned into an object" - "I was marshaled like a dog" - "Into shutting my soul up" - "I had my freedoms taken away from me" Your words, not mine. Do those strike you as phrases describing the dehumanizing effect of rescinded control? thing is, I read the second, third and fourth paragraphs and we're talking about something real. I get to Are we conflating antipsychotics with internet avatars? Because I fail to find the parallel.So, would it be dehumanizing for me to remove the externalities which are controlling my own mind, specifically the ones that are controlling the way I perceive things. In this case, like someone's avatar, or what they are "interested" in?
Furthermore, do you not see the merits of discussing UI choice by discussing choice in and of itself? Or the fundamental qualities of human behavior? Although I don't have the depth of experience in non-physical social constructs, I do have experience in social behavior. This topic is asking about humanizing Hubski, and I am trying to understand what is and isn't humanizing by your understanding.
Would it be an act of dehumanization to remove yourself from the controls of your own perception, specifically how you perceive others to judge you? And what you worded is just as interesting to me, because I am not at all interested with creating an image of myself here. But I also accept that it will happen. I believe it is beyond my control, but, pertaining to the topic of humanizing Hubski, I am now wondering if the beauty of this social construct is in the design... To break down the walls of human social behavior that evolution constructed since we first left the trees, that could arguably be more of a detriment to us now.
Let me break this down really simply: I didn't try restating your question out of some zen "grasp the pebble from my hand" thing. I honestly don't understand your questions half the time. "Would it be an act of dehumanization to remove yourself from the controls of your own perception" is like a Psychic TV lyric. I don't know what you mean by that. I think you mean "Is the effect as bad if you choose to opt out?" In which case I say "no, because you're choosing." But I'm just guessing here, man. The fact that "what I worded is just as interesting" to you when I was literally trying to say the same thing using simpler language illustrates that a whole bunch is being lost in translation. I mean, do me a solid and rewrite this sentence: ...such that a 4th grader could break it down. We'll talk.
To break down the walls of human social behavior that evolution constructed since we first left the trees, that could arguably be more of a detriment to us now.