Originally posted by ATS4dummies
That's another problem with the current "Attention Deficit" society, a failure to grasp intellectual constructs and debate meaningful points:
Do you realize, ENDISNIGH, you have completely ignored:
- The internet is sucking the life out of originality
- The internet and society has changed.
- Nobody makes Web sites anymore.
- Now everything is about making a buck.
- A vast majority of internet content has absolutely no purpose other than to generate "Hits".
- This attitude (of Bucks and Hits) is radically degrading our society.
- Creating anything for the sheer LOVE of it is no longer worthwile unless it makes a buck.
- The human race is being destroyed by the lack of originality and thoughtfulness at an alarming pace.
[edit on 12-12-2009 by ATS4dummies]
Intellectual constructs? Perhaps, or maybe more emotional outbursts. But okay, you want a meaningful debate, let us begin.
1.) The internet is sucking the life out of originality:
Not the most original argument ever made, but let us consider for a moment that this might be true. There is what would seem a box like quality to
the internet that is like a box where the four walls inside that box are painted like the sky blue sky giving an appearance to a vast wide open space
where anything is possible while those who sit inside that box sit happily inside their comfortable trap tap-tap-tapping away at their keyboards
endlessly chattering in a strange and even guttural hyper text.
There is much to bemoan an internet language that encourages people to diminish the value of words rather than revel in them. There is a horrifying
consequence in a proclivity to use the pronoun I and not capitalize it. There is a lazy, hazy daze to reliance on acronyms that exist to communicate
nothing more than laugh out loud or laughing my AST off. Yet, even so, there is a sort of originality to LMFAO, even if it be crude and typed only
to communicate a shared experience of humor. Should we picture when someone types ROFL, that that person is actually rolling on the floor laughing?
Were they rolling on the floor laughing whilst they typed ROFL or did they stop rolling on the floor laughing long enough to type ROFL?
Fairly inane this proclivity towards acronymistic communication but sucking the life out of originality? One would have to allow originality had a
life to begin with in order to accept such an argument. Here is a valid concern, more people have access to the works of William Shakespeare because
of the internet and yet, in all likelihood, less people today are familiar with the works of Shakespeare than were a century ago. For surely, if one
who would make the claims as made by you were intimately aware of the works of Shakespeare that person would know that Shakespeare pretty much said
all that needs to be said and few people since have said anything new, only differently than Shakespeare said it.
What is original today or even yesteryear for that matter? Was Picasso original in his art, and was it really all that different from some of the
cave paintings dated to be thousands of years old? Was Salvador Dali a true original with his surrealistic art, or was he profoundly influenced by
Pichot, and was that impressionistic artist influenced by yet another? It is said that art imitates life and in life, we seem to be remarkably the
same today as we were two thousand years ago, only we have better shoes and cooler toys. Is it really the internet's fault that originality seems
to be lacking today?
Endisnighe makes a valid point with television and take the time to watch early television and observe how remarkably much it sounds like radio of
that time and prior. Only difference is it came with pictures, stagnant, awkward pictures that only through time, developed into a more fluid type
of entertainment that finally became its own long after the advent of cable television that itself in the very beginning of that new technology only
imitated the "real television" of that time. Now, after finally breaking out into its own art form, and arguably modern television has become an
art form, "real television" imitates cable.
You have declared the internet to be guilty of "sucking the life out of originality" but you have offered no evidence to support this accusation and
the preponderance of proof lies solely with you! You want a meaningful debate? Then prove through either overwhelming evidence or at the very least
through circumstantial evidence that this is so. You have done neither with your original post and thus, your backhanded dismissal of endisnighe's
response is premature, at best and pretentious and self serving at worst.
2.) The internet and society has changed.
The opposition in this debate would like stipulate for the record that this is correct and would only ask what your point is? I had much thicker and
stronger hair when I was younger, enough then, fortunately, that I still have some now, not as much as then, tragic as that is to my own vanity, but
true. Change is eminent, this is the reality of all matter in the universe. All systems tend towards entropy, this is just a simple fact of the
physical world we live in. The internet did not create this phenomenon.
3.) Nobody makes web sites anymore.
I work closely with a young man who makes a living designing new web sites for people every day. He makes a living at in Los Angeles where one must
be making more than 50,000 a year in order to be making a living. That would constitute a fair amount of new web sites.
4.) Now everything is about making a buck.
There is a Latin phrase that states Caveat emptor
which means "Let the buyer beware. Latin is a dead language not even spoken at mass by
Catholic priests anymore. A language dead for quite some time now and yet, when it was alive and well, they found it prudent to lament the very same
thing your lamenting now. I wonder what the Latin term for internet was?
5.) The vast majority of internet sites has no purpose other than to generate "Hits".
This is just demonstrably false, and while all those who create a web site have every right to hope they can generate "hits", I refer back to my
Shakespeare argument to illustrate how one might create a web site even if it doesn't generate as much hits as say, Facebook, or Twitter.
[edit on 12-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]