|
Post by valerie on Dec 8, 2006 22:39:31 GMT
Besides, my skimming would've been easier described as "reading the first parts of the article, then becoming bored with the logic and just passing over the rest." Wait. There was logic in this article? Wow, must have gotten lost in all the WANGSTING about how he has no friends and how many times he's called a fag.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Dec 8, 2006 22:53:48 GMT
If there's logic it's in homeopathic doses.
Anyways the best response I can give to the article and, indeed, all of its ilk is the following quote from one of my Favourite People Of All Time, Isaac Asimov:
"I do not fear computers -- I fear the lack of them."
|
|
|
Post by DR. INTOXICÅTION on Dec 8, 2006 23:16:19 GMT
...Yeah, my life isn't miserable. So I didn't even bother checking out the link.
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Dec 8, 2006 23:35:12 GMT
Heck, probably because of my current status (mom who has to deal with other idiot moms whether she likes it or not), I enjoy having the ability to filter idiots right out of my life.
I'm kind of a loner IRL. It's not that I don't want or need friends; I don't need a lot of them or to be the life of the party. I always preferred curling up with a good book to partying all the time. So, the Internet is great for someone like me. I'm an introvert and not ashamed to admit it.
I also don't agree with how he interprets communicating on the 'net. People can just as easily build false personas IRL as on the 'net. Plus look at the sheer number of disagreements and arguments that are on this forum alone! Multiply that by all the forums, communities, blogs, ad infintium, and you've made cheese out of this guy's whole shtick.
|
|
|
Post by musicgoround on Dec 9, 2006 13:18:19 GMT
Yeah, I totally agree with Valerie here. Especially the part about communicating through text. I've had some very meaningful AIM conversations over the past six years. It's not as good as hanging out in real life, but if you know the correct way to communicate over AIM, it's the next best thing. And if you write someone off just for saying "no, thank you" in a text or email, you've got problems, not them.
Lots of other things to point out, but I'll just close out by saying that the whole section on "mass media" was BS, for obvious reasons.
I don't get what the author of this article's problem is anyway. Like I said, if you hate the 'net so much, it's really, really easy to avoid it altogether. And we had "tools" to "avoid real life" way before the 21st century started. I spend most of my spare time watching TV and listening to music, and you coulda been doing those things 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 9, 2006 15:33:20 GMT
Valerie, if he's a "loser" for mistaking "No, thank you" for an offensive remark, then what does that make you? His friend saying "No, thank you" was at least someone he and other acquaintances had known, someone who was known to use "No, thank you" in a particularly deriding way. His mistake is understandible.
You, on the other hand, have read precisely one article by this guy, nothing else, you don't even know his freaking NAME, and yet you're trying to convince us that he's some sort of emo mad-at-the-world goth. Your conclusion is based entirely on that you didn't like this article. That is not reasonable by any means.
Many of the statements he made in the article were sarcasm. Obviously, he didn't really send a dead rat to his friend. Obviously, science hasn't proven lonely people become goths. Obviously, the UCLA didn't use a machine to arrive at a 93% statistic. Frankly, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that these statements were meant to be taken literally. However, sarcasm like any form of humor exists to make a point, which he does and in my opinion, does well.
And those statistics you dismiss so readily? He didn't invent those. In fact, I did Google searches for most of the claims he made, and actually got results (in your defense, I saw an article debunking the "93% of communication is non-verbal" claim, but saw nothing to counter his other statistical claims). I had actually read about some of these studies well before seeing this article. Frankly, the statistics were around before this article reported them.
I find it rather disconcerting that you not only had such a huge knee-jerk reaction, but feel compelled to keep piping in with random "That guy's an emo freak" comments. Excuse my presumptuousness, but that reaction gives me the impression that something in the article was just a little too close to home for you.
Diala: No, "everything was better in the past" is NOT the "whole freaking point" of the article. In fact, that's nowhere near the point of the article. It doesn't even approach being a central theme of the article.
If you had actually read the darn thing, you might've come across this paragraph:
Now Diala, explain to me again how the author is saying "everything was better in the past?"
As flawed as Valerie's response was, she at least READ the darn thing, and her response was based on something in the article striking apparently ticking her off. You, on the other hand, read only the first paragraph and then decided you knew what the entire thing was about and made a bunch of dismissive remarks that showed you really didn't know what you were talking about. That's as ignorant as dismissing a fanfic because it supports couples you don't like.
I sure as heck hope you didn't just "skim" this response.
[Edited for clarity and length]
|
|
|
Post by valerie on Dec 9, 2006 21:11:36 GMT
Many of the statements he made in the article were sarcasm. Obviously, he didn't really send a dead rat to his friend. Obviously, science hasn't proven lonely people become goths. Obviously, the UCLA didn't use a machine to arrive at a 93% statistic. Frankly, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that these statements were meant to be taken literally. However, sarcasm like any form of humor exists to make a point, which he does and in my opinion, does well. Sorry, James, but in the real world where the rest of us live, sarcasm doesn't do squat to prove a point. If you're going to make a theory, you need to back it up with something other than personal experiences, sarcastic remarks, flawed statistics, and a CLEARLY biased attitude toward the Internet and communication. You need solid facts and stats you can actually cite. You can't run around saying "OMG THE NETS ARE BAD" simply because you've had bad experiences. Everyone's experiences are different. Also, my dear, the only thing that hit close to home was his skewed view on communication, as that's what I'm studying and know that a lot of what he's saying is a crock. Everyone else sees it for what it is: emo wangsting. How do YOU NOT see it? D:
|
|
|
Post by diala on Dec 9, 2006 21:21:34 GMT
Diala: No, "everything was better in the past" is NOT the "whole freaking point" of the article. In fact, that's nowhere near the point of the article. It doesn't even approach being a central theme of the article. Um, didn't you even READ my point up there?! Perhaps his point wasn't "everything" in the past was bad, but it comes pretty close. He is arguing that we were happier in the past, and that is OBVIOUSLY very close to "everything" for people. Stop defending this poorly-done article.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 10, 2006 2:55:51 GMT
If you're going to make a theory, you need to back it up with something other than personal experiences, sarcastic remarks, flawed statistics, and a CLEARLY biased attitude toward the Internet and communication. You need solid facts and stats you can actually cite. He did. Not only that, but I found independent verification for those stats in a Google search (in your defense, one of those pages said the "93% of communication is non-verbal" belief was rubbish). Here's the search results: Social IsolationMuch of what you say in E-Mail is misunderstood93% of Communication is Non-VerbalIf anyone is biased, it's you. Then why don't you cite some counter-examples instead of just saying "OMG he's a psycho emo loser?" Let's face it: While we don't all agree with his statements, he does have a huge basis for them. You, on the other hand, have nothing but petty insults against a guy whose points you can't disprove. Oh yeah, "everyone agrees with me, so I must be right!" THAT'S an objective, rational arguement all right. What was that you said about living in the "real world?" Because I just looked over this topic, and you're the only one who thinks the article is "Emo wangsting." You're also the only person in this topic who has insulted the author. Oh sure, there are people who disagree with the article, but disagreeing with it and seeing it as emo wangsting are not the same thing. Secondly, even if everyone DID agree with you, there's no way I'm going to side with someone whose entire counter-arguement consists of "He says things that speak against my preferred lifestyle so I'm going to insult him and call him names." Um, didn't you even READ my point up there?! Perhaps his point wasn't "everything" in the past was bad, but it comes pretty close. He is arguing that we were happier in the past, and that is OBVIOUSLY very close to "everything" for people. Stop defending this poorly-done article. Notice that I haven't attacked any of this article's other critics--just you and Valerie. The other critics aren't letting their personal feelings cloud their judgement, nor are they basing their entire criticism on just one paragraph. You didn't even read it, how do you know its poorly done? Grow a backbone and admit to your mistake already. Continuing to criticize it even after having admitted you haven't read it is ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by valerie on Dec 10, 2006 4:35:02 GMT
Y'know, before I step away from this ridiculous argument (because it's clear you're FOR the article and no one is going to stand in your way) I have to wonder, dear James, if this article hits close to home for YOU. You're defending it so much. Guess you can relate to it a lot. :/
Anyway, backing away before I say things I really shouldn't, because hell if you haven't tested my patience enough.
|
|
|
Post by diala on Dec 10, 2006 4:37:28 GMT
Notice that I haven't attacked any of this article's other critics--just you and Valerie. The other critics aren't letting their personal feelings cloud their judgement, nor are they basing their entire criticism on just one paragraph. Wow, aren't you a gentleman? Okay, so I made a small judgment mistake. However, the point remains: the whole idea of the article is to say that the 21st century is making us miserable because we are "supposedly" looking more online for our relationships. I disagree, and I read enough to come to that conclusion. It just seems that you want to just up everyone else in forum arguments. In fact, ALL you ever do here, James, is argue with people and bicker about the show itself. I read on your LJ that you didn't like KND. So why stick around? Call me "bitter" for "losing" at your little game, but that has been on my mind for a long time. Oh, and Valerie was just arguing with the article. 0xFF agreed with her. Why don't you bicker with him?
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 10, 2006 5:59:17 GMT
Okay, so I made a small judgment mistake. Well, at least you acknowledge it. That's an improvement. And you base this claim on, what? This topic alone? I'm harsh at times, but that's not the same thing. For awhile I was dissatisfied with the show, but still came on the strength of A) there were a lot of cool people here and B) a lot of the things they discussed were pretty interesting, show-related or not and C) despite not being so heavily into the show anymore, I could still contribute. As I explained (and apparently you and Valerie didn't understand), it wasn't that you didn't like the article, it was the lapses of logic and judgement you two in particular were guilty of. Judging from past experience, 0xFF would never make those kinds of mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by diala on Dec 10, 2006 6:24:10 GMT
Okay, so I made a small judgment mistake. Well, at least you acknowledge it. That's an improvement. Yes. Now you can brag all you want to your IRL friends how you pwned some idiot like me on a freaking kid's forum.
|
|
|
Post by cybra on Dec 10, 2006 7:12:05 GMT
I've read the article and would like to argue against the attempted logic contained within. And I have to ask who actually wrote this article. James quoted Michael Crichton at the beginning of this, but--if that is who we're supposed to credit with this--it doesn't sound like his writing. I've read both Jurassic Park and The Lost World cover to cover six times, but this doesn't have the same style. Who's the writer since I can't find a name?
Intro
As an introvert, the Internet was actually a godsend. I met my best friend online. We can practically read each other's minds after five and a half years of text communication. That's right. Text only. We have each others' phone numbers, but neither of us has ever dialed the other one up.
She's in my (admittedly small) circle of trust. I can tell her anything without fearing getting judged. I can be happy, emo, pissed off, and she'll listen to me and commiserate with me, join in my glee, or virtually smack me upside the head, whichever I need at that second.
Now, I admitted that my circle of trust is small, but remember what I said? I'm an introvert. Large crowds make me nervous. I like human interaction on a small scale. Plus I've always been uncomfortable sharing too much with other people. The Internet didn't do that. It's just the way I've always been. After all, I didn't get Internet access until about 1995 or '96.
1. Not Enough Annoying Strangers In Our Lives
Untrue! Some people are just terrible at handling annoyance. We all have our tolerance levels, and some of ours are lower than others. I have a short temper. When I get annoyed, I get antsy and pissy. And if you're gonna claim the Internet did that to me, ask my family how foul a temper I've got. The sorts of horror stories that they have of me from when I was small would shock you.
Also, the writer's points on online shopping are borderline asanine. Businesses build their websites for online shopping in order to obtain business. After all, the Internet is a powerful marketing tool. If a website for a business physically housed in Texas can get a guy in Norway to buy their product, that's more money in the bank.
I will admit that some people use it in order to avoid human beings. However, there are some of us out there who can't drive to the closest store ourselves due to a lack of license or they just choose not to learn and prefer to take the bus, or the local store doesn't have the item desired in stock. As said before, businesses want customers. By building a website that can be ordered from, those of us who run into those problems can still provide the business income.
Speaking as a child of the 80s, I have to wonder why this guy failed to remember that we are the generation of the walkman. And I don't mean the CD version. I mean the old tape version that had only three buttons: play, stop/eject, and fastforward. (Yes, I realize that I just dated myself again.) People were tuning other people out with headsets long before the iPod was a glimmer in Steve Job's eye.
Besides, there are magazines that are provided in waiting rooms for the specific purpose that you can avoid talking to other people. Newsflash: This isn't new. I've seen people read novels while they sat and waited for upwards of two hours in the doctor's office. You don't need an electronic toy to avoid human beings. Good old fashioned print will do just fine.
2. Not Enough Annoying Friends, Either
First of all, how many people want to be friends with people that annoy you? Ever? Maybe I came from a strange little town, but people formed cliques all over the place based upon who was most compatible with each other. That's why you have labels like "goth", "geek", and "jock": We flock to who's most like us, and try to avoid the people who rub our proverbial fur the wrong way. It's who we are as human beings. Get used to it.
Our author brings up the point that via the Internet, you can have a private chatroom and block out all of the people whose opinions differ than yours. How's this different from reality? At my old elementary, middle, and high schools, if you wanted to have a private chat, you turned to your friends and ignored everybody else. If you didn't want somebody in on your conversation, you either ignored them or made them feel as uncomfortable as possible until they went away. Again, get used to it. And, again, I started school before the Internet arrived on the scene to make our lives all sparkly and shiny. It was always this way.
Someone else said it, but I'd love to see a citation for where modern science proved how you become a goth. Ladies and gentlemen, I've already admitted I'm not the most social (or sociable) person on Earth, but I'm certainly not a goth. Heavy metal hovers just above rap on my List of Favorite Music (that is, down at the bottom). Also, the only reason I wear black is because the shirts with the funny computer nerd sayings I wanted were black. That's all. If they came in bright blue or green or some other color, I would've bought them just the same. (Except pink. I find the color repulsive because I just got sicker and sicker of it as time went on. The stereotypical girl color drives me bonkers since practically everything designed for women is in that color, but I digress.)
However, if science has proven that avoiding annoyance makes you a goth, then I go back to my earlier point of people avoiding others with the printed media: Why aren't there more goths among them? After all, they're avoiding human beings by shoving their noses in books. And some of those books can be really depressing at times. What makes hanging out on the Internet so different?
3. Text = Bad Communication
First of all, I will point out that the underlying point that our article writer has is valid: Things can be misinterpreted in text. After all, you don't get the tone of voice, just the words.
However, those problems can easily be overcome with a simple "What do you mean?" Incredible isn't it? You actually ask the other person to clarify what they meant. Any polite human being does that even in normal coversation since verbal speech isn't always clear, as I will expand upon in a second.
The fact that the author sent a dead rat back through the mail along with the unopened letter makes me see not e-mail in the wrong, but the human being who read said e-mail. If these two people are friends, why didn't the author simply ask as opposed to flying off the handle? Or maybe he could've simply stepped away from the computer for a little bit to cool down before asking. There were other, better options than sending a rat carcass to a former friend.
As I stated above, misinterpretation lies not just in textual communication, but also verbal. Take this idiom that my dad (Kentucky-born) likes to use:
"I'm finer than frog's hair."
Another Kentuckian would probably understand that right off. They grew up with the phrase and know that this means that the person who said it is doing great. Now to someone who isn't from Kentucky, they might wonder what on Earth that was supposed to mean. Is this person doing well or what? Yes, you have the tone of voice to give a clue as to the meaning, but it still can be rather baffling.
Also, I used to know someone from the Ukraine. Before she switched schools, I was basically her English teacher. (That poor girl.) Every time I used an idiom that she was unfamiliar with, she'd give me a weird look since she didn't understand what I was saying. In addition to that, my spoken syntax isn't always perfect, so that would baffle her further since it wasn't the sort of English she'd been taught formally.
4. Text = Less Communication
This time, I have to tip my hat off to our author's blatant disregard for the printed media. There are newspapers out there which communicate quite well with nothing but text. There are books out there that are meaningful and touch your heart using only text to communicate with. Also, hand-written letters can get quite a good message across about how the writer is fairing or what they're feeling.
The author complains about people pausing to edit their e-mail before sending it along in order to avoid saying something wrong in the heat of passion. My friends, the last time you wrote a letter by hand, did you just scratch it down, shove it in an envelope, and send it on its way? If you answered "yes", you are--in my experience--a minority. My family tends to read over its letters to make sure everything sounds right and that they say all they need to say before we ever drop them in the mailbox. And I mean a real mailbox, not the digital inbox.
In addition, how many people have fired off an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment without bothering to read through it? It happens. And instant communication like the Internet can really bite you in the rear since there's no way to run back to the mailbox and remove the letter before the postman picks it up.
Also, if I might point out this quote:
First off, what color is the sky in this person's world? I've never met another girl who would tell someone she likes them and then shove their heads into their breasts. It's not just too forward but also embarrassing and makes the girl look like she should be hanging out on a street corner in the red light district. The blatant chauvinism of this statement makes me gag.
Still I am forced to agree that it's nicer to have that special someone tell you that they return your feelings in person as opposed to text. But I ask you a question: What about Valentine's Day and secret admirers? A card or note that expresses what they can't get past their lips can be just as sweet along with something to treasure for many years to come, not only as a memory but also as something you can touch to help make the memory more vivid.
I mentioned that books can be meaningful to people. That's because books can make you feel something if it's a good writer. A particularly moving passage concerning the fall of a hero could move someone to tears. If you remember the time following the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, people actually mourned for the loss of a beloved fictional character. If text can't express meaning, then how can so many people become attached to someone who only existed in a book and feel grief at their demise?
And I'm shocked at the final statement in this section. So e-mail provoked our author into sending their friend a dead rat because they weren't actually talking to the person? I must say that's no excuse. As stated above, we can fire off an angry e-mail just as easily as we can snap at the person who made us angry. However, e-mail gives us the opportunity to step away from the argument or argument-to-be, calm down, and then re-think our strategy. I'm amazed that this person didn't think to do that. Blaming it on e-mail itself since his friend wasn't in the room speaking the words that made him upset is shifting the blame and doing a poor job of it as well.
5. We're Not Criticized Enough
Remember how I said above that my best friend who I only know through the Internet will slap me around when I'm being a moron? She does it even when I don't want to hear her criticize me but to commiserate with me. Does this mean that I can't take what she says seriously because I only speak to her via the Internet? Does that mean that five and a half years of friendship that actually helped me survive the last year of high school hell and all of college was a waste? I like to think she's helped make me a better person even if she doesn't stand literally by my side with her bouts of criticism.
Also, I've been called various names over the Internet as well. I've been called quite a bit of those very names he listed. (Yes, even the ones that are meant to offend a young man because, apparently, I sound vaguely male in my writing.) Those people I tend to ignore just as I would in real life because those people don't know me. However, there are some people who really do criticize you and can help make you a better person without you actually knowing them very well.
For instance, when I write fanfic, I get people who will message things at me like "Love it! Write more!" or "You're an idiot for writing this!" I generally ignore them but find myself gravitating towards the people who take the time to write something truly criticizing what I've written. It's helped me become a better writer in such a reasonably short amount of time.
Some might point and say that that's just writing, but what about on a message board for common interests? There are some people who take the time to read what you wrote and criticize your logic, making you see another point of view. How can this make you a better person? By teaching you to look at other perspectives, to think more clearly through your reasoning, and back up your claims. I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned some of my best arguing techniques via message boards.
6. The Outrage Machine
I would like to point out that the author once again blatantly ignores printed media. In this case, what is known as "yellow journalism". Posting the most shocking and argument-starting articles isn't the Internet's sole property. No, it's been done for years. At least a hundred if my memory serves me correctly. Such a news story gets attention and sells papers. That's life on planet Earth, folks.
Also, the author's claim that there is no more mass media is a terrible statement to make. The mass media does exist. The only difference there is between now and twenty years ago is that we have more options to retrieve said mass media from. News and information travels at the speed of light nowadays, and people will interpret that information as they will. Yes, even the newscasters who have their own agendas behind what they show the public. We're human beings, my friends. Interpreting something multiple ways is just something we do. Two people could witness the same event but it's slightly different for each since we all have our personal biases.
In addition, the multiple news channels generally display the same basic information but stress different things. They might lean towards a particular party or point of view, but the facts remain the same. You can still argue with your neighbor about the status of the national budget. Your source of information just might be different from his.
7. We Feel Worthless Because We Actually Are Worth Less.
What a charming attitude our writer displays with this title alone! Again, I must cite my online friend. We both put a lot of emotional involvement into this bizarre friendship of ours. We trust each other with everything. I know that I could tell her my deepest, darkest secrets, and she'd care about what I said. The reverse is the same. And if a subject is uncomfortable for one or the other, we each know when to press and when to change the subject as if we were sitting across from one another at the local coffee shop.
I would like to argue against this particular point. Self-esteem and the ability to like yourself can be built up even if you've done something the people around you don't like.
Example, your friends are shoplifting, and instead of joining in, you tell the manager or just walk away. That doesn't make you likeable to your friends. As far as they're concerned, you're a killjoy, a snitch at worst. And, yeah, you feel bad because they're mad at you, but you did something that you can personally be proud of. That builds self-esteem and you like yourself better than if you'd just given in.
Of course, this works both ways. Some criminals gain a lot of self-esteem from getting away with crimes. Stealing things doesn't make you likeable. Murder doesn't make you likeable. But their confidence boosts up because they did it and didn't suffer the consequences. It makes them feel invincible.
In conclusion, I have to toss out this article as so-called proof that the Internet makes you miserable. Humans are miserable because they choose to be. The only difference between misery in real life and misery in the text-based world of the Internet is just that: It's text-based. We get the same annoyances on the Internet that we get in real life, but we have to adapt in different ways. After all, there could be someone on a forum you're a part of that could really irritate the crap out of you with everything they say and, as long as you stay on that forum, they'll just continue to annoy you even if you try to avoid reading their posts just as you would try to avoid bumping into them in a hallway.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Dec 10, 2006 12:27:13 GMT
*applause*
Amazingly well done. A masterpiece.
Allow me a few minor additions to the debate:
1) The 93% figure? Well I did some checking myself and the google results were an equal mix of debunkers and proponents. Sadly neither of those come from a credible source (credible here being defined as, say, 'peer-reviewed journal') and the wikipedia article (which is at least one iota more credible) does quote the figure but says it represents the precentage of emotional information that gets transfered via non-verbal means when conducting a face-to-face conversation. Now that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and doesn't sound at all strange -- after all when you are talking to somone, live as it were, ou obviously aren't going to SAY 'I am very angry right now' you are going to let the thunderous expression, vitriolic tone and furious body language to do all the work. Limiting the information to text does not excise the 93% just like that. It just forces you to shift as much of it you can to actual words -- which is why writting letters is a considerable skill. Furthermore, the 93% figure is what makes my hackles rise. It bears all the hallmarks of a made-up statistic that gets bandied about ad nauseam because someone feels it proves a point. Like the blather about us using only 10% of our brain -- codswallop.
2) Cybra, I think you and, perhaps, others are misinterpreting the style the article is written in. It's what you may call the 'internet irreverent' style and as such abounds with sarcasm and hyperbole. Sadly it's been done poorly and, thus, isn't funny. That's why the author makes such flagrantly idiotic statements such as 'they used a machine' or 'science proves you turn into a goth' or 'dead rat via mail' and on and on in that vein.
|
|