I was reading a critique of literature this morning and noticed that the author was being rather negative and critical of others for being too negative and critical. S/he seemed oblivious to the contradiction, as their writing bemoaned the lack of more positive writing.
A stark problem with the success of the 419 fraud schemes is that the perpetrators often say they do nothing more than let people give them money. The victims fall into a trap of optimism, believing that they have actually found something for nothing. Alas, a little more critical thinking might be just what the doctor ordered for the new and less familiar risks people face online or to deal with a world where common hallmarks of universal rights are being seriously challenged (i.e. the Geneva convention):
Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN’s chief anti-torture expert says.
[…]
Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.
Writing will be positive when people feel safe and prosperous (again). On what basis would a person manufacture a positive outlook in the face of great moral, financial or even physical danger? Conversely, prosperity and positivity also brings heightened risk in the forms of threats and vulnerabilities, painfully illustrated by the tragedy of the Cathars. Should proper caution and controls lead to a more universally safe and stable foundation, positive writing may again someday flourish. Until then, attacking people for being too negative is little more than the pot calling the kettle black.