He makes a good point.
...Twenty-five years on, remembrance or nonremembrance is still one of the most useful tools for understanding generational divergence in opinion on the world 9/11 created.
The most obvious difference is in attitudes toward the security state. For those who remember 9/11, the term security state is itself pejorative. It calls to mind the Patriot Act, the Transportation Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and other governmental novelties that smack of tyranny to those who lived through the supposedly carefree ’90s. These days, no one seriously discusses dismantling the agencies or rolling back the Bush-era surveillance legislation. And the security cameras, bollards, and metal barriers now ubiquitous on city streets are accepted elements of an urban environment. Still, those who recall life without these encumbrances grouse about them, and, sometimes in fits of pique, vow to smash them. That dissatisfaction often expresses itself as opposition to other innovations whose introduction works under the same compulsory, invasive logic: masking mandates, data centers, Flock cameras....
How to determine someone's age? Easy!!
...The desire to be rid of the security state and its accoutrements is baffling to those who remember nothing else. For most Americans under the age of thirty, constant surveillance and security mandates are not unprecedented; they are normal. And in some cases for some people, they are even comforting. ...
Yah, no: we are not accusing Jessica McBride of being 'under thirty.' Her obsession with security cameras comes from a different motive.
Here's the real shocker:
...Younger people are not nearly as bothered; a few years ago, one study found that a surprisingly high number—nearly a third of Americans under 30—support the installation of government surveillance cameras in houses....
Wow.
No comments:
Post a Comment