Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Humanities 7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable, Credits to Cracked.com, by David Wong.

views
     
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 08:20 AM, updated 16y ago

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


All credits to Cracked.com. by David Wong.

Original source here.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 10:17 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


None, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.

If that's not acceptable, give me the cue, and I'll close the thread.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 10:39 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Nov 15 2009, 10:21 AM)
Deadlocks,

<<one, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.>>

Why do you think that it is a very acceptable piece of read??

Obviously, you have SOME OPINION and THINKING while reading.  What are them??

Or, you are LIKE what is described in the article??  You BELIEVE that YOUR OPINION and THINKING is WORTHLESS??

Dreamer
*
My opinion? I agree to everything that is written in that article.

Other than saying: "As centuries after centuries passes one after another, we humans have always found a way to filter direct communication with each other", it's pretty much the same thing that's in that article.

So unless it is an order to close this thread, I will not take any course of action in regards to this thread any further.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 15 2009, 10:39 AM
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 17 2009, 05:48 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 16 2009, 05:42 PM)
Technology doesn't make people miserable. People make other people miserable. Technology is just a tool. In this case, a means to reach out to other people whose main purpose in life is to inflate themselves by making other look bad. Those people are already out there before the internet even existed. Like in real life, you can avoid them if you choose to.

Whether you choose to wither away at the keyboard or do some healthy exercise has nothing to with technology. It is a decision that you make. Technology is just an additional option in your life. Like every choice you make, you will need to face the consequence of that decision.

See the problem with discussing an article which is based on opinion. Everyone has an opinion which may or may not coincide with yours. How does one tell which opinion is more "correct" than another? You don't.
*
So you do not believe that the anonymity that technology gave us also degrades our confrontational interaction endeavors?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 09:46 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 17 2009, 02:01 PM)
Mind explaining "confrontational interaction endeavors"? I never come encountered this particular phrase before.
*
If you seek the definitions for each word, you should be able to find out what they mean.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 02:21 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 12:25 PM)
It's your words and you can't explain what it means?

"confrontational interaction" definitely means arguing, the endeavor part is what I don't understand. The endeavor part make it sounds like your are actively pursuing arguments with others.
*
http://www.answers.com/topic/confrontation

http://www.answers.com/topic/interact

http://www.answers.com/topic/endeavor

And no, confrontational interaction does not mean arguing.

Do you now realize, how easy it is to look for the definitions?

And don't let me start with google.com as well.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 18 2009, 02:27 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 04:11 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 02:55 PM)
And yet you have not explained the phrase that you have given. Words have many meanings. The meaning changes depending on the other words that it is put together with.

I have yet to encounter anyone using confrontation to represent a peaceful encounter. A confrontation is a type of interaction so interaction in this phrase is redundant. Using the definition for endeavor that you have provided, the only interpretation that I can come up with is actively looking for a fight. Is this what you are trying to say? If not, can you come up with a simple explanation on what it means?
*
LOL! If all interactions are only meant to be confrontational, how do you explain text based chatting?

Okay, I'll spoonfeed you.

Confrontational interaction endeavours.

Confrontational = The state of confrontation, i.e. to confront.

Interaction = To act together or towards others or with others, commonly via communication, when it involves individuals more than one.

Endeavour = To make an attempt.

Now, put them all together:

"To confront", "to communicate", "to attempt".

Simply speaking:

Attempts of confrontational communication.

Get it?

Sigh.





SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 11:18 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 04:35 PM)
Confrontation is a type of interaction. I didn't say all interactions are confrontational, it is a type of interaction. Appeasement is a type of interaction. It's like saying an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Attempts of confrontational communication still sounds like deliberate attempts of pissing people off. Confrontations tends to have a negative connotation.

Maybe the term you were looking for is socializing?
*
Not socializing exactly, since people can also socialize in the Internet.

But what I don't get it is your stubbornness to refuse to define confrontation as merely confronting person, i.e. meeting up face-to-face, and confrontational communication means a communication that is done face-to-face.

Did I break it down clearly this time?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 18 2009, 11:19 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 10:21 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 10:17 AM)
So are you trying to ask whether technology is the cause of real life conversations becoming less common or that real life conversations skills are being stunted because of technology?
*
Yes, do you not believe that it may be so?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 01:55 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 10:57 AM)
There's 2 questions in there, which question are you referring to?
*
I said yes to the first question.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 04:18 PM)
Real life communications are becoming less common because it is not really that convenient. Both parties has to be available at the same time. If you exclude telephones usage, both parties would need to be in the same location as well requiring time to be wasted on traveling. With technologies like telephone, you don't have to be in the same located. With email and instant messaging, both parties don't even have to online at the same time. They may not talk directly but the message is still getting across.

The question is why is having face to face conversation so important?
*
Because it is closer?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 23 2009, 10:37 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(where @ Nov 21 2009, 04:02 PM)
So can we say the solution is to go out more, be friendly/genuine, try new things, be outgoing and adventurous, meet more people?

Instead of still over relying on the internet/sms/msn/forums and getting emo because its messing up your head?
*
Yeap.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 24 2009, 10:46 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 23 2009, 11:53 AM)
I'm not saying that technology should be used in all cases but asking what makes one form of communication is more superior than others as implied by Deadlocks' questions.  The act of communicating through a phone does not make a person less real. There's still a person at the other end.

In your first example, technology is still not substituting a person. Substituting means that there's no real person on the other end of the conversation. You would be communicating to a machine instead of a person. Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?
*
True, but with the lack confrontational conversations, people are more inclined to ASSUME that such conversations are NOT AS REAL as the one in REAL LIFE. Although they have themselves to be blamed for conceiving such a perception, it should be noted that most people are less socially welcoming today compared to the past, due to the inferior amount of confrontational interactions they have managed to achieved in the modern world today.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 26 2009, 09:23 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 25 2009, 09:09 AM)
Somehow you are misinterpreting the question that was asked. I'm not asking who would come up with. I'm asking why would such a product exist in the first place. Technology doesn't just pop into existence by itself, the need for it have to be present before someone would start working on it. So who's fault is it that such things exists in the first place?

It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, the one that chooses to use a particular technology is the user. There is nothing to prevent you from not using technology. It is your choice and you'll have to live with the consequences of making that choice. Want to use electricity, you are gonna need to create some pollution as a result. Want to use clean energy, you will have to pay more for it.

The example of the movie Wall-E is more about what happens when big business make the decisions in your life. Specifically making you buy and use technology that is not needed. Thinking for yourself is no longer "cool" so we follow what we are told without question due to fear of becoming the odd one out.
*
You may wanna quote my comment too.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0157sec    0.33    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 06:27 AM