I hate it when people profess their intolerance for people who do certain things. This entire entry will probably come off as rather hypocritical then and maybe this statement of self-defense means absolutely nothing, but here goes anyway. I wouldn't say I'm "intolerant" of these people, as I've never said a word against them until now and because I probably won't think too much less of a person if they do it, but it just irks me. ...Anyway.
This is a growing trend on sites that garner a significant population from various subcultures. Example one: deviantART. I have lost count of the number of journal entries, stamps, clubs, and deviation descriptions that will right out write off anyone who uses (or attempts to use) Japanese (or Wapanese -- but the first Urban Dictionary definition offends me, by the by). I can understand why so many people would be annoyed, especially with the anime subculture having grown (and still growing) so rapidly, thus population all corners of the Internet with crazy fangirls and boys who entertain and amuse themselves with uses of words like "kawaii," "sugoi," "baka," "gomen," "-chan," "-kun," "-sama," and "ne." I understand this would be even more annoying for people that do not consider themselves members of the subculture and have been forced to learn the meaning of these words through mass overusage. And even though I do consider myself part of this subculture, I'd be lying if I told you it didn't annoy me sometimes. I will probably punch you in the face if you call me "Kiri-chan."
But is there really a reason to rally against them as harshly as so many people have? Most of the kids using the terms are 12-15 and feel a little special for knowing what they are. It's like a (not-so) secret language they can use amongst friends and other people that "understand" them (I think a recent installment of ANN's Hey Answerman! used this analogy). It's just that the "in-group" is so ridiculously large now that there's lots of overspill. However, most of these kids outgrow it by the time they hit 16 or 17. I would also be lying to you if I said that I've never been guilty of using some of those words (more on this later) -- I'm sure hunting down archives of forum posts I made five or six years ago would harvest a decent crop of silly Japanese terms, but come on. Let kids have their fun.
Really, I think it's a little arrogant and elitist to come down so hard on them. I don't think any of the people using the words are "trying to be Japanese" or "rejecting their actual heritage." There's no need to be so offended by the use of harmless words, especially if you already know what they mean. As the subculture expands, the words have become such a normal occurrence that they might as well be up there with other subculture-spawned terms like "lol," "iawtc," or "n00b." Some people will also rag on the l337 subculture's butchering of various English words, but despite the fact that I just wrote an entry ranting about the general disregarding of our language, I don't think that the usage of 1337 terms correlates directly to not knowing spelling and grammar worth a shit. Likewise, usage of miscellaneous Japanese terms does not mean they don't know the English equivalents or are trying to be Japanese. I don't even think they're trying to be "cool" or "cute." They're just having fun.
I like the Japanese language a lot. I think it flows very well and would love to actually sit down and learn it some day. I generally believe that I've picked up a decent slice of vocabulary and while I've outgrown using random terms online, I've begun weaving some words into my everyday verbal speech along with Spanish, which I've come to appreciate a lot more now that I've stopping taking classes for it. So frequently, I find myself responding "¿qué?" or "nanda?" instead of "what?" using "¿quien es?" and "¿qué es eso?" instead of "who is it?" and "what's that?" and "doko desu ka?" for "where is it?" I also seem to use "sou" and "sou desu" a lot for simple agreement and both "shirimasen" and "yo no sé" for "I don't know."
And I wonder, would people also consider this pretentious of me? Am I trying to be Japanese or Spanish? I don't really think so. I just enjoy using the languages, even if I'm not very proficient in either. It makes me smile when my brother and I can converse in Spanish, even if they're just little phrases that we banter back and forth ("No sé!" "¿Por qué no sé?" "No sé porque no sé! D:"). And yes, there is a little bit of enjoyment that comes when people around us don't understand what we're saying. It's like an in-joke and everyone loves being a part of something like that, right? But yeah, one of these days, I half expect some asshole to come up to me and tell me I'm not Japanese and therefore should not be using random bits and pieces of phrases.
The only thing I can sort of understand confronting someone about is incorrect usage of grammar. By all means, if I am killing the poor language's grammar, please inform me of this. Preferably in a civil and polite manner. But maybe that's just me and my I-love-grammar nonsense.
I wanted to extend the general concept of this entry (railing against certain people for doing certain things that really shouldn't be that big of a deal) to something else in the advanced text-based roleplaying community, but I'm all tired of writing now. Maybe later. In the meantime, people, really. Stop giving the kids such a hard time. Why do you think they're so many emokids these days anyway?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
An Edumacated Nation
Every day, I think of about ten things I could write about. Unfortunately, I know how long-winded I can get about pretty much everything and so I put it off because I really do have other things to do. But anyway, I suppose since I'm actually bothering to sit down to write an entry now, I should shut up with the intro and just get to what I wanted to talk about.
Can someone please explain to me why so many people I meet seem so utterly uneducated? I know it's stereotypical to say that those in the "artkid" category are utter failures at mathematics and the mathematical sciences (chemistry and especially physics), but the more of them I meet, the more I've come to think this is true to a ridiculous degree. This past quarter, on more than one occasion, my design professor had to explain to the class how to arrive at your area based on the dimensions of your paper. ...The entire time, I was like... "Are you shitting me?" Width times height equals area. Christ, a fifth grader could tell you that! You're telling this to college kids? Are you shitting me? But really, I know it isn't even just the artkids. Pretty much anyone who isn't majoring in a math/science field is prone to these instances of proven ignorance.
Some information leaves you as soon as the tests are over. I know this and am guilty of it myself. A ton of material I learn for an exam and then will never be able to recall it again. However, there is a lot of stuff I think that everyone should just know. Forever. No matter how long it's been. Finding the area of a rectangle is one of those things, right up there with knowing that Europe is a continent. I don't understand how people -- people who have graduated high school, or hell, people who've graduated elementary school -- could not know these things. Part of me feels a little arrogant for ragging on people like this; after all, I have always been a "math nerd" and "artkid" simultaneously and I've taken three levels of Calculus, but really now... the area of a rectangle!
Math and science aside, I love English. I admit that it's a messed up language, has more exceptions than rules, and is probably the most difficult language in the world to learn, but I love it anyway. And so I love grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and cry a little on the inside every time I see it butchered beyond recognition. Public, private, or home school education -- every American kid should have at least twelve years of schooling in the English language behind them. There is absolutely no reason a twenty-two year old woman should write like this (and yes, this is a very ironic quote):
"this person isnt too smart now are they or do they believe we are that stupid but yes that pose does look fermalure"
Fermalure ≠ familiar. This seriously made me so sad. Not to mention the subject/verb disagreement and lack of punctuation. I understand this is the Internet. Typos happen and laziness happens, but for the latter argument... I really don't think it takes all that much effort to capitalize words when you should and tap in a comma now and again. It also won't kill anyone to throw in a space between sentences, y'know? There is only so much laziness that can occur before sentences become utterly unreadable. This is particularly frustrating when you're taking commissions... and you can't understand anything your commissioner has to say. My brother jokes that maybe English isn't these peoples' first language, but I know of many Europeans and Asians for which this statement is actually true and their English is impeccable.
I find it incredibly sad that I know French, Malaysian, Romanian, and Norwegian people whose grasp of the English language is ten times better than actual Americans (or British people, even). How is it that they're able to have such an amazing handle on not only their own language, but usually three or four other languages? And the majority of Americans can't even grasp their own? Why can't most people -- this isn't even my own age group I'm talking about, it's everyone, your brother, your mother, and your granduncle -- remember the distance between they're, there, and their? Here/hear? Then/than? Accept/except? Maybe some things are minor, like who/whom. Very few people ever seem able to grasp that difference, but the others shouldn't be that hard.
And there should never, EVER be a reason that any should spell "familiar" as "fermalure." Never. I don't even care if you're dyslexic because I know a dyslexic girl and even she doesn't butcher words like that. Firefox has a built in spell check. For the love of all that's good, use it.
It frustrates me to no end. Communication has always been vital, but I think it's become more and more important these days because it's become so easy. It all goes back to the Internet thing. If you can't communicate, you should be in deep shit. So why can't so many people communicate in a way that I can understand them?
Sometimes, it makes me think like they overemphasize education because obviously thousands of people have been able to get by without retaining what I would consider to be an average education, but I really don't want to believe that. And they're in good positions even. Successful small business owners, programmers, entrepreneurs, and the like. None of them can spell. None of them know where to put their commas. None of them know the difference between "your" and "you're." And if they do, they don't care.
I don't think our education system is that bad. I went to public school for twelve years and while I'd admit that it wasn't the most amazing experience and that I've had my share of very shitty teachers, I've also had some amazing teachers (particularly English teachers) and I know I've learned a lot and have been inspired to learn a lot. Unfortunately, a vast majority of students, including my classmates in honors and AP classes, did not seem to care much about a lot of things. And these are the kids that will be your doctors and your lawyers. Maybe you really don't need perfect grammar to get by in these or any profession, but is that really an excuse to disregard your own language completely?
So yeah. I'd like to give most people the benefit of the doubt and say they're at least averagely intelligent human beings. Even that blonde in the YouTube video up there. But then why, why if you are civilized and educated, you can not type me a coherent sentence so that I may respond to you in an efficient manner without rereading what you wrote a half dozen times?
...That is all for now.
Can someone please explain to me why so many people I meet seem so utterly uneducated? I know it's stereotypical to say that those in the "artkid" category are utter failures at mathematics and the mathematical sciences (chemistry and especially physics), but the more of them I meet, the more I've come to think this is true to a ridiculous degree. This past quarter, on more than one occasion, my design professor had to explain to the class how to arrive at your area based on the dimensions of your paper. ...The entire time, I was like... "Are you shitting me?" Width times height equals area. Christ, a fifth grader could tell you that! You're telling this to college kids? Are you shitting me? But really, I know it isn't even just the artkids. Pretty much anyone who isn't majoring in a math/science field is prone to these instances of proven ignorance.
Some information leaves you as soon as the tests are over. I know this and am guilty of it myself. A ton of material I learn for an exam and then will never be able to recall it again. However, there is a lot of stuff I think that everyone should just know. Forever. No matter how long it's been. Finding the area of a rectangle is one of those things, right up there with knowing that Europe is a continent. I don't understand how people -- people who have graduated high school, or hell, people who've graduated elementary school -- could not know these things. Part of me feels a little arrogant for ragging on people like this; after all, I have always been a "math nerd" and "artkid" simultaneously and I've taken three levels of Calculus, but really now... the area of a rectangle!
Math and science aside, I love English. I admit that it's a messed up language, has more exceptions than rules, and is probably the most difficult language in the world to learn, but I love it anyway. And so I love grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and cry a little on the inside every time I see it butchered beyond recognition. Public, private, or home school education -- every American kid should have at least twelve years of schooling in the English language behind them. There is absolutely no reason a twenty-two year old woman should write like this (and yes, this is a very ironic quote):
"this person isnt too smart now are they or do they believe we are that stupid but yes that pose does look fermalure"
Fermalure ≠ familiar. This seriously made me so sad. Not to mention the subject/verb disagreement and lack of punctuation. I understand this is the Internet. Typos happen and laziness happens, but for the latter argument... I really don't think it takes all that much effort to capitalize words when you should and tap in a comma now and again. It also won't kill anyone to throw in a space between sentences, y'know? There is only so much laziness that can occur before sentences become utterly unreadable. This is particularly frustrating when you're taking commissions... and you can't understand anything your commissioner has to say. My brother jokes that maybe English isn't these peoples' first language, but I know of many Europeans and Asians for which this statement is actually true and their English is impeccable.
I find it incredibly sad that I know French, Malaysian, Romanian, and Norwegian people whose grasp of the English language is ten times better than actual Americans (or British people, even). How is it that they're able to have such an amazing handle on not only their own language, but usually three or four other languages? And the majority of Americans can't even grasp their own? Why can't most people -- this isn't even my own age group I'm talking about, it's everyone, your brother, your mother, and your granduncle -- remember the distance between they're, there, and their? Here/hear? Then/than? Accept/except? Maybe some things are minor, like who/whom. Very few people ever seem able to grasp that difference, but the others shouldn't be that hard.
And there should never, EVER be a reason that any should spell "familiar" as "fermalure." Never. I don't even care if you're dyslexic because I know a dyslexic girl and even she doesn't butcher words like that. Firefox has a built in spell check. For the love of all that's good, use it.
It frustrates me to no end. Communication has always been vital, but I think it's become more and more important these days because it's become so easy. It all goes back to the Internet thing. If you can't communicate, you should be in deep shit. So why can't so many people communicate in a way that I can understand them?
Sometimes, it makes me think like they overemphasize education because obviously thousands of people have been able to get by without retaining what I would consider to be an average education, but I really don't want to believe that. And they're in good positions even. Successful small business owners, programmers, entrepreneurs, and the like. None of them can spell. None of them know where to put their commas. None of them know the difference between "your" and "you're." And if they do, they don't care.
I don't think our education system is that bad. I went to public school for twelve years and while I'd admit that it wasn't the most amazing experience and that I've had my share of very shitty teachers, I've also had some amazing teachers (particularly English teachers) and I know I've learned a lot and have been inspired to learn a lot. Unfortunately, a vast majority of students, including my classmates in honors and AP classes, did not seem to care much about a lot of things. And these are the kids that will be your doctors and your lawyers. Maybe you really don't need perfect grammar to get by in these or any profession, but is that really an excuse to disregard your own language completely?
So yeah. I'd like to give most people the benefit of the doubt and say they're at least averagely intelligent human beings. Even that blonde in the YouTube video up there. But then why, why if you are civilized and educated, you can not type me a coherent sentence so that I may respond to you in an efficient manner without rereading what you wrote a half dozen times?
...That is all for now.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Black Fridays and Dark Sundays
I think anti-consumerism is silly.
Maybe people spend a lot of time fussing over material things and maybe businesses "take advantage" of this to sell them things, but really... what does that have to do with you? Some people call certain things "frivolous." Luxury cars, expensive jewelry, fancy electronic gadgets and the like have been known to fall into this category. There are very few things that a person actually needs. We need food and water, shelter and warmth. For most people in this country (happy Thanksgiving, guys), these necessities come pretty easily. So technically, maybe everything else can be termed as "frivolous."
I think the main argument goes back to that being thankful thing. We have all this and the rest of the world doesn't, so maybe we should feel bad for spending our money on video games and shiny things that make noises when you wave at it. We should be saving the world, right? ...A lot of good that's doing us. But avoiding the topic of political debate, it is very natural for people to not want to worry about others and only take care of themselves. This doesn't really make them selfish or uncaring to the less fortunate; it just makes them human. In the modern world, with so many things available to us, what we perceive to be necessary changes. This isn't a bad thing. It's just how things go.
So people want stuff. They want all the toys and the wide-screen plasma TVs and the robot dogs and so on. I kind of want a DS Lite for myself. Necessary for survival? Nah. In fact, it's probably better if I don't get one so I don't distract myself from working on the various projects I should be working on, but do I still want it? Sure. Am I going to buy one? Maybe if the holiday season doesn't yield one for me. But the point is that there isn't much wrong with wanting a crimson and black DS Lite.
Maybe that $130 can go to a charity. Or maybe I just shouldn't be so invested in something so material. Yes, getting one would make me happy. So what? Any number of things can make people happy. I doubt very much that most people are only happy with material things and they have nothing else of value. Winning the lottery would make me happy because I could buy lots of stuff. But I could also travel -- traveling is not materialistic, but also requires money. I could also donate. I'm a pretty decent person, probably, so that would make me happy too. So really, does it matter that buying a DS Lite would make me happy too?
So Black Friday is tomorrow and consequently, so is Buy Nothing Day. Pointless. The holiday season will always involve lots of buying. People want things. PEOPLE WANT THINGS! I don't understand why this is such an outrage. For this, I think a lot of people just jump on the bandwagon because it's become pretty damn cool to rebel against society and The Man, whoever that is. Live life how you want, but if you're rebelling just to rebel, then you're still being controlled.
I read an article on the New York Times this summer about people who pretty much make dumpster diving their primary source of new things -- food, furniture, you name it. This is pretty awesome and I think it's really amazing that people can find all this stuff in the trash. But as a statement against consumerism? Not so much. I kind of just see it as being really frugal. They're still getting material things, they just aren't paying for it. And that probably makes them really happy too.
So tomorrow, I might be showing up at Fry's at five in the morning so I can nab a 500 gig external for $80 and maybe a couple of free (after rebate) flash drives. It's sort of ironic, really. Black Friday is sales everywhere. They claim you save money, but you're really not because you wouldn't have bought anything in the first place if they hadn't been so cheap. So in the end, you're still down the cash... but you got some cool stuff too. It's an excuse, I guess, to unleash that inner materialistic bastard in all of us. But I still don't think that's a bad thing.
I mean. We keep businesses in business and people in their jobs, right? And it isn't like you can't still enjoy a sunset or something. Anyway, these sorts of opinions always sound better in my head. I ramble too long and feel kinda dumb writing about them after a while.
Good luck shopping tomorrow, guys. Rock those long lines. (Don't forget about Cyber Monday either. Get ready to watch Amazon.com fall off from server load!)
Maybe people spend a lot of time fussing over material things and maybe businesses "take advantage" of this to sell them things, but really... what does that have to do with you? Some people call certain things "frivolous." Luxury cars, expensive jewelry, fancy electronic gadgets and the like have been known to fall into this category. There are very few things that a person actually needs. We need food and water, shelter and warmth. For most people in this country (happy Thanksgiving, guys), these necessities come pretty easily. So technically, maybe everything else can be termed as "frivolous."
I think the main argument goes back to that being thankful thing. We have all this and the rest of the world doesn't, so maybe we should feel bad for spending our money on video games and shiny things that make noises when you wave at it. We should be saving the world, right? ...A lot of good that's doing us. But avoiding the topic of political debate, it is very natural for people to not want to worry about others and only take care of themselves. This doesn't really make them selfish or uncaring to the less fortunate; it just makes them human. In the modern world, with so many things available to us, what we perceive to be necessary changes. This isn't a bad thing. It's just how things go.
So people want stuff. They want all the toys and the wide-screen plasma TVs and the robot dogs and so on. I kind of want a DS Lite for myself. Necessary for survival? Nah. In fact, it's probably better if I don't get one so I don't distract myself from working on the various projects I should be working on, but do I still want it? Sure. Am I going to buy one? Maybe if the holiday season doesn't yield one for me. But the point is that there isn't much wrong with wanting a crimson and black DS Lite.
Maybe that $130 can go to a charity. Or maybe I just shouldn't be so invested in something so material. Yes, getting one would make me happy. So what? Any number of things can make people happy. I doubt very much that most people are only happy with material things and they have nothing else of value. Winning the lottery would make me happy because I could buy lots of stuff. But I could also travel -- traveling is not materialistic, but also requires money. I could also donate. I'm a pretty decent person, probably, so that would make me happy too. So really, does it matter that buying a DS Lite would make me happy too?
So Black Friday is tomorrow and consequently, so is Buy Nothing Day. Pointless. The holiday season will always involve lots of buying. People want things. PEOPLE WANT THINGS! I don't understand why this is such an outrage. For this, I think a lot of people just jump on the bandwagon because it's become pretty damn cool to rebel against society and The Man, whoever that is. Live life how you want, but if you're rebelling just to rebel, then you're still being controlled.
I read an article on the New York Times this summer about people who pretty much make dumpster diving their primary source of new things -- food, furniture, you name it. This is pretty awesome and I think it's really amazing that people can find all this stuff in the trash. But as a statement against consumerism? Not so much. I kind of just see it as being really frugal. They're still getting material things, they just aren't paying for it. And that probably makes them really happy too.
So tomorrow, I might be showing up at Fry's at five in the morning so I can nab a 500 gig external for $80 and maybe a couple of free (after rebate) flash drives. It's sort of ironic, really. Black Friday is sales everywhere. They claim you save money, but you're really not because you wouldn't have bought anything in the first place if they hadn't been so cheap. So in the end, you're still down the cash... but you got some cool stuff too. It's an excuse, I guess, to unleash that inner materialistic bastard in all of us. But I still don't think that's a bad thing.
I mean. We keep businesses in business and people in their jobs, right? And it isn't like you can't still enjoy a sunset or something. Anyway, these sorts of opinions always sound better in my head. I ramble too long and feel kinda dumb writing about them after a while.
Good luck shopping tomorrow, guys. Rock those long lines. (Don't forget about Cyber Monday either. Get ready to watch Amazon.com fall off from server load!)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
It all started to not make sense
I started this blog as an afterthought after writing the post that I posted first. And then I figured, I've always kept my opinions undisclosed for the most part to avoid sparking debate because I hate conflict and roundabout arguments with stubborn people, maybe I should just let all of that out somewhere. It's easier to ignore the troublemakers on the internets, after all.
But I keep up with tons of things online and a blog is another burden, regardless of how much I could potentially write. I don't get around to it. This is still there though, waiting for something to happen. I actually had a list of topics somewhere for when I did find myself bored and wanting to ramble about something, but that hasn't happened yet. There's always something else to do. Oh well. I guess it's still in a state of "we'll see."
So, we'll see.
But I keep up with tons of things online and a blog is another burden, regardless of how much I could potentially write. I don't get around to it. This is still there though, waiting for something to happen. I actually had a list of topics somewhere for when I did find myself bored and wanting to ramble about something, but that hasn't happened yet. There's always something else to do. Oh well. I guess it's still in a state of "we'll see."
So, we'll see.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
If You Aren't On the Internet, You Don't Exist
I think I've actually believed this to some extent for a while, but I didn't realize it until yesterday. Some combination of reading Hugh MacLeod and some other stuff I've already forgotten prompted the thought, anyway. But yeah. The Internet is the new order, has been the new order. Life existing offline is only a mirage and has been growing more and more irrelevant since the onset of Web 2.0.
This map also illustrates it very well. And like the tooltip says, "I'm waiting for the day when, if you tell someone 'I'm from the Internet', instead of laughing they just ask 'oh, what part?'" Think about it. Every new kid you meet, what do you do as soon as you're not face-to-face with them anymore? You facebook them. How long did it take for Google to become a verb? A few years, at least. Facebook? Considerably less. I predict verbing Internet giants will continue to become more and more frequent. And if you can't find this person on Facebook? You bug them until they've joined. And if you can't convince them to? Well, then they probably don't really exist anymore.
Offline, people are invisible except to those in their immediate vicinity. Very limited in some cases. Online, people can present themselves to the entire world and the more people who know them, the more "real" they become. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. Likewise, a person doesn't exist unless others are there to observe them, to communicate with them, to know them, to validate their existance.
It's that sort of social map that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to utilize. Connections fire off left and right and a maximum of six connections supposedly separate you from any other person on the planet. Well, except for those who aren't online, who aren't on Facebook. Those people just don't exist, now do they? The people in an isolated village in Africa will not be included in this vast map. Maybe they don't even know the rest of the world exists. We certainly don't know that they do.
That is not to say that connections don't exist offline. They do, but again, they have become increasingly unimportant. Business relations stretch across continents and face-to-face meetings are a commodity. It's much more convenient to email them or instant message them. More efficient too, in some cases, because speaking on the phone makes it difficult to concentrate on anything else, but writing an email or IM frees you to work on other things or to communicate with a myriad of other people in the interim. And why do you think some people's whole lives revolve around their BlackBerry?
Ideas also flow much more freely and faster online. Blogging gave people jobs that they could have never attained by previously conventional methods because blogging opened up their ideas to many, many more networks than could be obtained offline. Offline, they did not exist. Online, they could communicate their thoughts with potentially hundreds of thousands of readers who would continue to pass them on and on and on like a virus. They would suddenly exist to so many more people.
So in this age, if you aren't connected, who are you really? Maybe you would exist to family and a handful of friends, but that's very limited. Maybe others will know of you through those immediate connections, but without actually seeing you face-to-face, they will not know you and cannot validate your existence (how many people think of their friend's friend's friend as a real, distinguishable person?). Online, with social networks and profiles catering to all audiences, a friend's friend's friend can readily contact you and engage in conversation, communication, thereby validating your existence.
Are these connections less personal? No, I don't think so. People become close by sharing ideas and thoughts, which are well facilitated online. They also become close by sharing experiences, also well facilitated online. These days, with all sorts of sophisticated video chatting and massive multiplayer online games such as WoW and Second Life, many experiences previously exclusive to face-to-face interaction can be simulated online. Are these experiences any less genuine? Why should they be? You're still interacting with real people.
But it isn't enough to just be an Internet user. Those are anonymous. If you only use email and send the occasional IM to your own group of friends, it's the same as your connections offline. Limited, closed. You only exist to them. What is there to distinguish one Anonymous /b/tard from another? Nothing. What is there to distinguish one hit on a blog to another? Nothing; it's a number. One IP address from another? Not much. If you are just a reader, never sharing, never commenting, then you are still no one. An empty account with no information. Invisible. If you only participate in closed communities, private boards, and locked journals; you're still nothing to the world. The world doesn't see you.
There's nothing wrong with maintaining a private life of course, but the fact remains that you only exist to those with immediate access. Some would say that that's enough, but in this increasingly connected world, opening yourself up to vast networks is important. It provides many more opportunities to get your ideas across. And if you don't have any ideas to share? Then you are simply mistaken. Everyone has an opinion. The freshman in high school, the white collar salaryman, the retired war veteran. Nothing important that ever happened in the world was done by keeping your ideas to yourself. But if you're okay with not existing, then I guess that's your business. I don't know about you, anyway.
There is immortality on the Internet. You only exist as long as there are people who remember you, even in memory. After you're dead, your existence is passed on through the ideas and whatever else you left behind. Physical artifacts are easily destroyed - the hard copy of your journal lost to fire, all of your family heirlooms crushed in the earthquake. Books are buried and hidden deep in libraries and your obscure and unique discoveries forgotten quickly. When all of your family and friends die too, there will be no one left to remember.
Online, your thoughts and opinions will remain archived on Blogspot or Livejournal until the apocalypse, most likely. Webcrawlers archive your other online activities periodically. Hundreds of users can continue to link and quote your content without looking in the library for your name. "Google that shit," says Dane Cook. Wikipedia will chronicle your legacy, if it was significant enough, and if not, smaller niche communities will do it for you with their own personal wikis. Your profiles will be immortalized on the web alongside others and your name, your ideas, your image, will live on forever.
Or at least, until Skynet takes over all systems and shuts down the network core of the world. With so many servers making up the Internet, it would take a lot to kill it. So if the Internet ever does die, mankind will likely go with it, because, quite simply, no one would exist anymore.
This map also illustrates it very well. And like the tooltip says, "I'm waiting for the day when, if you tell someone 'I'm from the Internet', instead of laughing they just ask 'oh, what part?'" Think about it. Every new kid you meet, what do you do as soon as you're not face-to-face with them anymore? You facebook them. How long did it take for Google to become a verb? A few years, at least. Facebook? Considerably less. I predict verbing Internet giants will continue to become more and more frequent. And if you can't find this person on Facebook? You bug them until they've joined. And if you can't convince them to? Well, then they probably don't really exist anymore.
Offline, people are invisible except to those in their immediate vicinity. Very limited in some cases. Online, people can present themselves to the entire world and the more people who know them, the more "real" they become. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. Likewise, a person doesn't exist unless others are there to observe them, to communicate with them, to know them, to validate their existance.
It's that sort of social map that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to utilize. Connections fire off left and right and a maximum of six connections supposedly separate you from any other person on the planet. Well, except for those who aren't online, who aren't on Facebook. Those people just don't exist, now do they? The people in an isolated village in Africa will not be included in this vast map. Maybe they don't even know the rest of the world exists. We certainly don't know that they do.
That is not to say that connections don't exist offline. They do, but again, they have become increasingly unimportant. Business relations stretch across continents and face-to-face meetings are a commodity. It's much more convenient to email them or instant message them. More efficient too, in some cases, because speaking on the phone makes it difficult to concentrate on anything else, but writing an email or IM frees you to work on other things or to communicate with a myriad of other people in the interim. And why do you think some people's whole lives revolve around their BlackBerry?
Ideas also flow much more freely and faster online. Blogging gave people jobs that they could have never attained by previously conventional methods because blogging opened up their ideas to many, many more networks than could be obtained offline. Offline, they did not exist. Online, they could communicate their thoughts with potentially hundreds of thousands of readers who would continue to pass them on and on and on like a virus. They would suddenly exist to so many more people.
So in this age, if you aren't connected, who are you really? Maybe you would exist to family and a handful of friends, but that's very limited. Maybe others will know of you through those immediate connections, but without actually seeing you face-to-face, they will not know you and cannot validate your existence (how many people think of their friend's friend's friend as a real, distinguishable person?). Online, with social networks and profiles catering to all audiences, a friend's friend's friend can readily contact you and engage in conversation, communication, thereby validating your existence.
Are these connections less personal? No, I don't think so. People become close by sharing ideas and thoughts, which are well facilitated online. They also become close by sharing experiences, also well facilitated online. These days, with all sorts of sophisticated video chatting and massive multiplayer online games such as WoW and Second Life, many experiences previously exclusive to face-to-face interaction can be simulated online. Are these experiences any less genuine? Why should they be? You're still interacting with real people.
But it isn't enough to just be an Internet user. Those are anonymous. If you only use email and send the occasional IM to your own group of friends, it's the same as your connections offline. Limited, closed. You only exist to them. What is there to distinguish one Anonymous /b/tard from another? Nothing. What is there to distinguish one hit on a blog to another? Nothing; it's a number. One IP address from another? Not much. If you are just a reader, never sharing, never commenting, then you are still no one. An empty account with no information. Invisible. If you only participate in closed communities, private boards, and locked journals; you're still nothing to the world. The world doesn't see you.
There's nothing wrong with maintaining a private life of course, but the fact remains that you only exist to those with immediate access. Some would say that that's enough, but in this increasingly connected world, opening yourself up to vast networks is important. It provides many more opportunities to get your ideas across. And if you don't have any ideas to share? Then you are simply mistaken. Everyone has an opinion. The freshman in high school, the white collar salaryman, the retired war veteran. Nothing important that ever happened in the world was done by keeping your ideas to yourself. But if you're okay with not existing, then I guess that's your business. I don't know about you, anyway.
There is immortality on the Internet. You only exist as long as there are people who remember you, even in memory. After you're dead, your existence is passed on through the ideas and whatever else you left behind. Physical artifacts are easily destroyed - the hard copy of your journal lost to fire, all of your family heirlooms crushed in the earthquake. Books are buried and hidden deep in libraries and your obscure and unique discoveries forgotten quickly. When all of your family and friends die too, there will be no one left to remember.
Online, your thoughts and opinions will remain archived on Blogspot or Livejournal until the apocalypse, most likely. Webcrawlers archive your other online activities periodically. Hundreds of users can continue to link and quote your content without looking in the library for your name. "Google that shit," says Dane Cook. Wikipedia will chronicle your legacy, if it was significant enough, and if not, smaller niche communities will do it for you with their own personal wikis. Your profiles will be immortalized on the web alongside others and your name, your ideas, your image, will live on forever.
Or at least, until Skynet takes over all systems and shuts down the network core of the world. With so many servers making up the Internet, it would take a lot to kill it. So if the Internet ever does die, mankind will likely go with it, because, quite simply, no one would exist anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
