It sure is odd to see '!=' on a blog not specifically dedicated to IT. What's to discuss? I thought the Atlantic article made a few valid points - but then the author went all old-phart 'get of my lawn' and he lost me.I don't think 'the internet' is all Good with no downside - nothing ever is. But I can't think of any 'down' at the moment.
At this point, I think both arguments are losing me. With the anti-Internet argument, it makes everyone out to be passive recipients. If there are people who spend all of their time on Facebook and who aren't exactly deep thinkers (which there certainly are!), whose fault is that? At some point, you have to make an effort to learn things, and that might well mean getting off the Internet. But that's your responsibility. It's like television. Sure there are tv addicts who aren't getting smarter watching American Idol repeats- but whose fault is that? The problem, if anything, seems to be intellectual laziness, and not lack of intelligence. I think the internet addicts will do great things- once they develop the wherewithall.For the pro-Internet argument, I'm sick of hearing about how Socrates didn't trust writing. Because, honestly, it is possible to be somewhat skeptical about technology and not be outright opposed to that technology. You don't have to be "pro" or "anti"- you can also be "meh". Nuance- it's the choice of a new generation.And he doesn't need to end with the story about how brilliant websites are becoming these days and how, in fact, we have the potential to become much smarter thanks to them. We've been hearing that the Internet has a great potential as a tool in making us all smarter for twenty fucking years now, and in that time, the populace has declined in every possible measurement of intelligence- aside from Facebook Intelligence. At some point, the pro-net people have to realize that this is what the critics of the internet are responding to. It's not that much of a stretch to encounter people who grew up with the Internet, and who spend eight-ten hours a day on Youtube or Facebook, who just happen to be dumb as a fencepost, and wonder if turning off the computer might not do them some good.And wondering that is not the same thing as huddling in a cave with a shotgun mumbling, "Keep all electrical devices away from me!"
But, you know, I do appreciate you posting this!
who just happen to be dumb as a fencepost, and wonder if turning off the computer might not do them some good.Assume they do. They're not going to go down to the library and check out 'Huckleberry Finn'. They'll just do something else equally lame.Not being a snob - most people just suck, is all.(whoa, look at that - guess who is up late and might be a tad grumpy.)
I guess what I found interesting about this is NOT the arguments, but the forum. When did freakin' WIRED start having to defend the righteousness of the internet? That suggests to me that they're feeling defensive, like maybe in the back of their minds, there is a little niggling doubt that somehow it IS, after all, laming the collective mind.Worse than that, their argument is kind of weak and boring. If you're going to accept a challenge to the legitimacy of your media/environment, at least don't undermine yourself...
That suggests to me that they're feeling defensive, like maybe in the back of their minds, there is a little niggling doubt that somehow it IS, after all, laming the collective mind.WIRED is just a magazine, published by Conde Nast. The staff who promulgated that meme are long gone and/or aware that they have to make a living working in the corporate world. This isn't (I hasten to add) bad or selling-out but it is what it is.If they were the chronicle of hip and edgy and cutting edge (and I think they were, way back in the early 90s) they stopped being that a long time ago.You can probably chart this by magazine covers. First cover is a partial face shot of Bruce Sterling: A dorky white guy with glasses.The August 08 cover? A skinny white chick showing a lot of leg and hair.
They're not going to go down to the library and check out 'Huckleberry Finn'. They'll just do something else equally lame.Yeah, I imagine that after a certain age, they will turn off the computer only to veg out in front of whatever shit is currently on MTV.You might be able to trick them into being intellectually active, if you start young. But a lot of parents seem to prefer that their children spend their time staring blankly at a screen- even watching television in the car, which I find a bit creepy.
But a lot of parents seem to prefer that their children spend their time staring blankly at a screen- even watching television in the car, which I find a bit creepy.For short trips, ya those are weird. For long car trips the things come in handy.No way I'm going to buy a TV just for the car. However on our last long car trip (DC to Virginia) we packed 8 or 9 DVD movies and threw a laptop back there.It's a long slog for adults who at least can see where they are going. Movies at least make the time pass when you're little.We also made sure they had books and my youngest brought his various toys and knickknacks. They spent (I'm guessing) 1/4 of the time watching movies, the rest reading, napping and having some kind of epic Pokemon war. The backseat was littered with wee action figures.
Post a Comment
Shouting about art and culture from an ivory soapbox in a lonely corner of Mall University. Come on in- the ennui is fine!
Note: No spam shall live.