MovieChat Forums > Black Mirror (2011) Discussion > White Christmas - Why 'blocking' a crimi...

White Christmas - Why 'blocking' a criminal is a terrible idea

posted 8 years ago by B-J-C
23 replies | jump to latest

I can understand why somebody in a heated argument might want to temporarily block the other person, but I don't understand how a universal block from everybody is supposed to work as a viable criminal punishment. Yes it's a terrible thing to do to somebody and it might work as a deterrent, but after it's applied and the person is released into society, any criminal tendencies they have would only be made worse.

One reason is pent up anger and frustration. Day-to-day practicalities aside; nevermind how the person is suposed to work and provide for him/herself. But if you take away a person's ability to communicate, they will eventually get frustrated and angry and lash out. Think of people with severe autism or other cognitive disabilities that limits their communication and understanding of the world around them; they find other ways to communicate, sometimes using violence. So why would you want to use that as a punishment for somebody who already has criminal tendencies?

A second reason why it's a terrible idea is it dehumanizes everybody else, making them an anonymous faceless mass. Any sense of compassion the criminal has would become greatly reduced when they stop seeing people as people - as individuals.

And the third reason, similar to the second, is if they do decide to hurt somebody, not only can they not see who their victim is, including any sense of fear or other emotion on their face, but the potential victim can't see them. They can't see the criminal's identity, his demeanor, his face and body language, all of which could be used to escape a situation before it begins.

I have read a few people saying that the blocking concept is a bad idea, but without any solid reasons why. So here are the main reasons as I see them.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

I think it was making a statement of a future society not being able to handle disputes, arguments, and conflict; to the point of being able to visually block someone who you want nothing to do with. An overly-sensitive and non-adaptable future society. I thought the concept was quite eerie actually. It killed the idea of freewill and inevitable basic human interaction.

But the flaws to this blocking method were that: let's say the person who got blocked wanted to physically harm the person who blocked them. Them blocking them wouldn't exclude the real possibility of them being physical harmed or even killed. In fact, it would made the attack (inflicted by the attacker) less personal, because they wouldn't even be able to hear or see their facial expressions during such an event. In other words, it would turn murder into a very impersonal and detached act. Almost like a video game. The blocking method would strip away all sense of humanity.

And as for being blocked BY EVERYONE. Well, that would be like a form of hell. In fact, that's what I didn't understand. If you were blocked by everyone, does that mean even people on television, in movies, in music, or just in random pictures?? Assuming that everyone is physically rigged with this type of technology. And if you were blocked by everyone, how could you even live a normal life? For example, let's just say that you have to call the bank to resolve a credit card issue...how would you even talk to the person on the other line? How would you even buy groceries at the store? What would driving a car be like? What if you needed to see a doctor? How exactly would that work overall?

[–] quartz (440) 8 days ago

I think it's just the concept of it happening, rather than the practicalities of how the situation would actually progress.