Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "How Do You Use Your Phone? | Easy Spanish 265" video.
-
@5:00 This guy is just falling into the trap of ‘things were much better in my day’. I’m not much younger than him and I’m here to tell him they weren’t, in case he’s forgotten. On balance, I consider the Internet and the democratisation of opinion thereby, has been a boon for humanity. The main drawback for me is the drastic deterioration in individual/collective attention spans as users all look to be distracted by the next ‘hit’. However egregious this fact is for me, it is far outweighed by the way the Internet has opened up all opinion to virtually everyone on the planet, including those in countries mired in acute poverty where a cellphone is often atop each person’s ‘hierarchy of needs’, as it is in affluent areas. This man, while I respect his opinion, is completely ignoring the multifarious positives of an Internet-world in favour of, dare I say, not moving with the times. After all, there were similar misgivings about how books would ‘corrupt’ when they became available to a mass readership, and similarly with television, where some commentators presaged the collapse of civilisation as we know it when that came along. It was ever thus, for back in the day even Socrates was looking askance at the youth of his day as they, as he saw it, indulged in idle chatter (for ‘idle chatter’ read ‘Internet chat’) and displayed bad manners and disrespect for elders (for ‘bad manners’ and ‘disrespect’ read constant phone use to the neglect of much else). Surely, each of us should summon the moral confidence of Socrates as he wandered around the market and simply declared: ‘how much I can live without’. In other words, this man has looked at the market of 2022 and, like Socrates, has decided to spurn some of its enticements, but he really has no right to deny these to others or to more than suggest that just because the Internet and cellphones do nothing for him, this does not mean that other people don’t find them useful and beneficial. My feeling is that he just resents not being able to attune to the signs of his times, and he comes across as a man out of his era, and therefore appears curmudgeonly and faintly ridiculous. 💻
3
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet having a voice and that being ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
1
-
1
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post (and concomitantly the content others consume). It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’. 💻
1