You did it when you spent a considerable amount of space explaining how sexual abuse is different because these abusers don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, so society needs a way to police them.

This was the bulk of your response to being against total public surveilance. You also didn’t explicitly agree or disagree with my assertion.

Instead you gave an explanation of the problems of criminality in society, asserted that something had to be done, and presented a huge cultural shift as the solution.

This neatly leaves the uncareful reader to potentially conclude that the surveilance is a reasonable approach to deal with an intractable social problem.

However, it really is not an intractable problem. it is a hypersensitivity to a horrific behavior that gets eyeballs in our truly fucked up profit-driven media system that thrives on manipulating our often morbid curiosity.

It is the constant airing of these events twenty four hours a day. If there are only 24 cases of such behavior on the planet in a single day, you will hear about it. That is 24 out of 9 billion people. Clearly evidence of the horrific cruelty of most humans, and particularly men, right? We have to do something to protect the innocent (insert women, children depending on the nature of the intractable problem).

Our history is littered with authoritarian movements making people believe the reality of a few bad actors is rampant cross society and is due to the “other”. They rally the weak willed foolish into destroying freedom, individuality, and life for their dear leaders’ enrichment, all while believing their moral certainty is unassailable.