Do not get me wrong I am sure for some there is a sense of agreement but for me I am not really affected or dependent on things detailed.
The writer goes for the tendency for social isolation via walkman ipods and their ilk.
I personally am one of the people that can not stand having what little hearing I possess rendered useless by headphones.
Sites of the "web 2.0" genre are somewhat lampooned.
I have never gone around one of the traditional sorts of "flickr/myspace/facebook/youtube/google/random blog unless physically linked to something there under the pretence it was something worthwhile much less registered and contributed (not even trawling for funny cat pictures).
Likewise I do not use MSN/AIM/Jabber/ICQ..... and IRC is limited to 2 channels (even then I only picked it up in place of torrents/usenet).
Related to above the pouring out of ones heart to said sites and forums as a "substitute" to human interaction in times of need.
I have no doubt that others gain things from it but I defy you to find something along those lines related to myself,
Text messaging is disparaged.
I got (read was strongly compelled to accept) a mobile phone when I went to university. I used it about 10 times to make out calls (which were either I have been attacked/attempted to be mugged/hurt myself or someone else or are you all alive) that day I left it the phone befell an accident. While I sent about 20 text messages during the time I had it they were only meet me here, this address, this number....
"#5. We don't get criticized enough."
The author links to worthwhile debate contrasting it with all out flame war/insult sort of thing. Personally I feel numerous subjects have been covered and "criticism" has been acted upon. Then again where I go perhaps does not reflect the general level of mindlessness and moronic behaviour that goes on in various corners of the internet (I once visited the gamefaqs/cnet forum and found myself thinking evolution can not be correct: people like this should not have lived long enough to be able to form as semi-cohesive sentence). It might also be the fact that a debate over matters of science and technology is more capable of forming intelligent debate. An anecdote I find amusing though: I was once in a kitchen of a friends house when some housewives struck up a conversation about generic soap opera [44]. Were I to rate them intellectually the rating would not be nice. They did however end up cross referencing numerous plot arcs/character interactions/inferences of years past (despite in actuality the "plot" being ripped from another TV show 5 minutes before the deadline): something normally regarded as a highly desirable asset for the intellectual "elite".
"#6. We're victims of the Outrage Machine."
Here the author sends up a tendency for the sensationalist "headlines" to grab attention versus the more balanced side of things. I will resist the need to reference/debate the long standing line of thought that says the same and instead do exactly what I was told not to do in an argument and talk about myself.
Both and subconsciously I would like to believe more often than not I avoid it: I do not read newspapers which seem more concerned with what/where said politician/sports star/celebrity ate/snorted/went on holiday/killed as I prefer IT, games and science/tech news. It may also be that I am somewhat stuck in the past: I built a new computer that plays 2 year old games fantastically, I am still playing through the xbox catalogue and finding even older titles I have not played, I do not watch TV (I recently found myself watching the first series of 24, a show I am told is over half a decade old, films are also in the same category), music: I have long paid little attention to pop charts but will confess to listening to the latest and greatest in viking metal, sports are the same: I have never watched a football/soccer game in my life or any other competitive sport by definition). Of course this has been taken too far in some areas of science (it is one of the reasons for my despising psychology) when anything that is somewhat sensationalist gets drowned out (there is no way in hell I could write a paper where one of the "gods of science" is wrong even it is truely is the case). On a similar note people also seem shocked when common sense is applied (it is a fuse: it does not need an electrician to change it) or something deviates from the rules (OMG Pulp fiction does not have a traditional beginning middle and end).
Lack of interaction: I freely admit I do not go out very often and rarely speak to anyone. This may be because most of my friends now live on other continents while I am stuck in my pathetic hometown trying to scrape enough funds together to do the same or maybe because getting drunk, starting fights and getting 16 year old girls pregnant does not do anything for me. Not sure where I am going with this one though.
In all truth it is more likely I am a bitter, jaded and cynical bastard with little regard for the thoughts, feelings and well being of others.
