Sam Courter
Sam Frace
Natalie Guyon
Cindy Himes
Rachel Hopkins
Isaac Lephart
Showing posts with label racheljean10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racheljean10. Show all posts
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Is the Media Brainwashing Us?
Think about it. How much of an effect does the media you consume affect your outlook on different parts of your life? Does is change your perception of men? Women? Children? Or does it affect the way you act? Your mannerisms and quirks. I bet it's got a greater impact than you'd think.
First of all, I'm not just talking about television and film. No doubt, television and film are two of the greatest mediums to have an effect on young people today. However, it's not the only medium that has a hold on us. Twitter, Facebook, Blogging Sites, magazines, smartphone apps, textbooks, coffee cups, clothing. You name it, they all have one GIANT aspect in common: they're all trying to sell you something. And that something is just their newest product.
For example:
State Farm, showing us how women are prudish and incapable of trust.
Maybe we could even have Volkswagen give us a lesson on how fathers are only capable of "passing down" a decent car, especially since this one's an inept athlete.
No matter what commercial, television show, film, radio program, magazine, or blog you check out, you're going to find that companies and programs aren't just trying to get you to buy into their product, they're attempting to get you to buy into socially constructed ideals and values, despite how inaccurate they might be, in order for you to buy their product.
These large corporations rely on the fact that consumers are non-critical thinkers about what they actually consume. They hope you watch these depictions, find some sort of humor in them (probably because they're familiar due to the tired, unoriginality of the socially-constructed idea), and want to buy their product because you think they have a good sense of humor. Which, many people would say that's not a bad thing. Many people would argue that these companies don't mean anything harmful by selling to us like this.
I would argue that these companies sell us these ideas because there are enough non-critical thinkers out there to buy into it and they can continue to profit from our capitalist society in this manner. These companies also instigate ideas of some sort of "normalcy" that they want us to buy into in order to seem more "real" and authentic. The companies truly only have one concern in mind: money. And I think Macklemore would agree with me. Macklemore, will you please share with us your thoughts on capitalism, specifically the Nike shoe company?
If I still don't have you convinced that big name companies aren't doing some serious damage to our society and culture, let me end with some images that might change your mind. High-end fashion companies are always going for "shock value" but these have gone too far. Companies like Dolce and Gabana, Calvin Klein, and various others are attempting to create this concept of what a typical person is suppose to be like.
 |
| Add caption |
Are these the values you want imposed upon you, your family, or your friends? Are we going to let giant companies get away with attempting to sell their products through violent and over-sexualized images? Is this what we want to become our "new normal?" If not, what do you think we can do to change this?
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
So, Let's Talk about (500) Days of Summer and Friend-Zoning
First of all, if you haven't seen this movie, do it now. Don't even read anymore. Just go find the movie and watch it. If you don't wanna watch it, fine. At least see the trailer.
Okay. So the story goes something like this:
Summer is a young woman who don't need to man to tell her what she's worth. She's resorted to the idea that love isn't real and doesn't exist. Tom is a young man who resembles a puppy that's just found it's forever human. He clings onto Summer based on mutual likes and dislikes and makes himself believe "she's the one," (what does that even mean?!). She ends up telling him that she's not interested in a relationship and he accepts it. However, they hang out, go on dates, and engage in sexual behavior as if they were in a serious romantic relationship. And while each character is breaking gender stereotypes (Summer being strong, independent, and in control) and Tom (who is small-statured, emotional, and "weak") this whole idea isn't furthering our positive and equal representational rights as humans. We're still being fed lies that this is how relationships are and should be.
Okay, so I get it. Not every man is hunky, strong, muscular, blah blah blah. That's awesome! Tom is an awesome character in this perspective because he breaks those stereotypes. There's this "new normal" (oh no, normalization in the media!!!!) of a young man who is work, confused about life, small in stature, smart, intellectual, etc. Pretty much everything that wasn't there before has now appeared.
Now there's Summer. Non-typical beautiful girl who is smart, independent, intellectual, strong (but still surprisingly thin and petite) and she is, above all, not into a dating relationship. Very different than the woman who must have a man to be assured a "civil lifestyle."
Awesome. We're breaking stereotypes. Good job Hollywood.
HOWEVER: They're also creating new ones. Stereotypes that are just as detrimental as the ones prior, but they're wrapped in different paper and called something else because now the gender roles have switched.
**"Cue the term "Friend-Zoned."**
In the film, Tom gets angry with Summer about being friend-zoned. Where did this term even come from and why do people use it in a derogatory manner?
Rachel, it's not derogatory, it's just the way things are. We're progressive now and since gender roles have changed, so must the terms we use to describe the unfortunate (but inevitable) act of being rejected.
It is derogatory, though. I'm gonna point fingers at the men in the room and call you out. When you're interested in a girl but she doesn't return the feelings, you usually get sour and claim you've been friend-zoned. Ah. The victimization! The cruelty of it all! You claim she's done you an injustice by leading you on and making you believe that she was interested to whole time!
No. When did that become a proper defense for rejection? It's like a little boy whose mother wouldn't buy him the toy at the store. The little boy would throw a tantrum. Using the phrase "I've been friend-zoned," is like throwing a tantrum because you didn't get that thing you wanted. Not only does the term objectify women into prizes that can be won or obtained, it also insinuates that women are still not granted the right to free-choice in choosing whomever they want to be romantically engaged with.
It's an ancient way of thinking and if we want to progress feminism (remember the part where that's equal representation of men and women?) we have to accept that these kinds of terms and ways of thinking are prehistoric. By using phrases like that, we're backtracking and creating even more social issues for young people.
While I don't condone or encourage the type of behavior represented in the film, I believe young men, especially, have to realize how detrimental it is to think in the way of a victim when someone doesn't share the same feelings. Saying someone friend-zoned you isn't gravy. And it probably won't help you if you're trying to win someone's heart over. Heartbreak sucks. But everyone has to face the music at some point. Just don't throw a tantrum when it's your turn.
Okay. So the story goes something like this:
Summer is a young woman who don't need to man to tell her what she's worth. She's resorted to the idea that love isn't real and doesn't exist. Tom is a young man who resembles a puppy that's just found it's forever human. He clings onto Summer based on mutual likes and dislikes and makes himself believe "she's the one," (what does that even mean?!). She ends up telling him that she's not interested in a relationship and he accepts it. However, they hang out, go on dates, and engage in sexual behavior as if they were in a serious romantic relationship. And while each character is breaking gender stereotypes (Summer being strong, independent, and in control) and Tom (who is small-statured, emotional, and "weak") this whole idea isn't furthering our positive and equal representational rights as humans. We're still being fed lies that this is how relationships are and should be.
Okay, so I get it. Not every man is hunky, strong, muscular, blah blah blah. That's awesome! Tom is an awesome character in this perspective because he breaks those stereotypes. There's this "new normal" (oh no, normalization in the media!!!!) of a young man who is work, confused about life, small in stature, smart, intellectual, etc. Pretty much everything that wasn't there before has now appeared.
Now there's Summer. Non-typical beautiful girl who is smart, independent, intellectual, strong (but still surprisingly thin and petite) and she is, above all, not into a dating relationship. Very different than the woman who must have a man to be assured a "civil lifestyle."
Awesome. We're breaking stereotypes. Good job Hollywood.
HOWEVER: They're also creating new ones. Stereotypes that are just as detrimental as the ones prior, but they're wrapped in different paper and called something else because now the gender roles have switched.
**"Cue the term "Friend-Zoned."**
In the film, Tom gets angry with Summer about being friend-zoned. Where did this term even come from and why do people use it in a derogatory manner?
Rachel, it's not derogatory, it's just the way things are. We're progressive now and since gender roles have changed, so must the terms we use to describe the unfortunate (but inevitable) act of being rejected.
It is derogatory, though. I'm gonna point fingers at the men in the room and call you out. When you're interested in a girl but she doesn't return the feelings, you usually get sour and claim you've been friend-zoned. Ah. The victimization! The cruelty of it all! You claim she's done you an injustice by leading you on and making you believe that she was interested to whole time!
No. When did that become a proper defense for rejection? It's like a little boy whose mother wouldn't buy him the toy at the store. The little boy would throw a tantrum. Using the phrase "I've been friend-zoned," is like throwing a tantrum because you didn't get that thing you wanted. Not only does the term objectify women into prizes that can be won or obtained, it also insinuates that women are still not granted the right to free-choice in choosing whomever they want to be romantically engaged with.
It's an ancient way of thinking and if we want to progress feminism (remember the part where that's equal representation of men and women?) we have to accept that these kinds of terms and ways of thinking are prehistoric. By using phrases like that, we're backtracking and creating even more social issues for young people.
While I don't condone or encourage the type of behavior represented in the film, I believe young men, especially, have to realize how detrimental it is to think in the way of a victim when someone doesn't share the same feelings. Saying someone friend-zoned you isn't gravy. And it probably won't help you if you're trying to win someone's heart over. Heartbreak sucks. But everyone has to face the music at some point. Just don't throw a tantrum when it's your turn.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Are "gender norms" really all that bad?
In class, we've discussed the whole concept of branding children and selling to them. Now we're focusing on the theory behind the branding such as colors that coordinate with a child's gender or toys that are specifically designed to appeal for a boy or a girl. We've scrutinized these elements as if to say they are horrible and detrimental to a child's mental health a development, but is that necessarily true?
I pose the question because I come from a background that is very similar to what we read. When I was very young, my parents built and moved into a new home. My parents left it up to me to decide what color carpet I wanted in my room and I remember, without a pause, I told them pink. They asked me repeatedly if I was sure and if that was the color I'd be okay with having and I said yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Nowadays, I'm not the biggest fan of the color pink.
As a little girl, I was often asked what I wanted to become when I grew up and up until the age of 6, I would say that I wanted to be a princess. I remember family members laughing at me and dismissing it as a "child's" thing to do. But now we're questioning that answer based on the idea of what a princess is according to Disney and other major companies have that have shown us. Basically, as a child I was heavily influenced by gender norms and what was expected of men and women.
But is it actually a bad thing to have gender norms for children? I mean, look at me. I'm living proof that a little girl can go through her, "I love pink and want to be a princess" phase and still get out alive. I'm working towards achieving a higher education, I have two jobs, I'm an advocate for equal rights, I plan on owning my own business someday, I'm part of three campus organizations, I'm a positive contributing member of society (meaning I've never been arrested or engage in illegal activities. I also pay all my taxes), and I still enjoyed playing with Barbies and doing my hair and makeup when I was a kid.
I will admit that part of the reason I got out alive was the nurturing I received from my parents. Even though I was permitted to watch these movies and play with these toys, I wasn't permitted to engage in those activities in excess. I was told to play outside whenever I had the chance, I need to try and help myself before asking anyone else to help me, I participated in sports, I learned music and how to play several different instruments. Sitting around and having someone pamper me was never truly an option and I thank my parents for that. Much of the "princess generation" we see projected on television (like Toddlers in Tiaras) is an effect from parent's not providing the proper nurturing to their children. But that's not what this post is about. I just think it's an important part of the bigger picture that I needed to point out for this post's sake.
So as terrible as some of our readings make it sound, I don't think that allowing young boys to play with Tonka Trucks and giving young girls Barbies is going to negatively impact their social growth or alter their ability to function in our society. I would have to agree with what Sydney brought up in class today about this idea simply being a phase and that, in order to avoid isolating a child from other children, it may even be necessary to introduce such concepts to children when they are young.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Smartphone, Dumb Conversation
After completing the Literacy Journal assignment for my Digital Literacies class, I had to step back and evaluate what I had recorded. See, the point of the assignment was to write down every single moment we read or wrote something during the day. We had to do this for a week straight. I noticed there was one constant throughout my literacy intake and outtake: I spend too much time on the Internet.
I don't mean researching and engaging in important information that was critical to learning. I mean, I was on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest every hour, and sometimes even several hours all at once.
It's not like any of this information was news to me, nor was I shocked that it occurred so often. I've been completely aware of my social network interaction for the last seven years. But it all seemed to accelerate and increase in December 2012, when I receive my first ever smartphone.
So when did this behavior become acceptable? Appropriate? Healthy?
I went to BDUBS tonight with a good friend and former roommate of mine. Over the last few months I have become increasingly aware of how distracted I am through the use of my iPhone in public settings. So, tonight, I decided to leave it untouched and in my purse. Checking Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr, and even Snapchat was off-limits for the next hour and fifteen minutes we were going to spend together.
We talked about church, class schedules, different teachers we had. We also talked about the new people in our lives and the old people. We talked about our pasts and things that hadn't been brought up in a while. The important part of the evening wasn't necessarily the conversation topics we covered, but the fact that I could recall the conversation an hour afterwards. I've only been able to do that a handful of times since December.
Over the last eight months, there were times when I was so busy updating pictures and statuses of who I was hanging out with and what we were doing that I missed out on actually enjoying my time with those people and participating in the activities we were engaging.
While I was sitting in BDUBS, I took a mental note of how many tables around me had easy access to their cell phones. The first point I should make is that every table within eyesight of me had at least one smartphone sitting out. The second point should be that at every one of those tables there were at least two people actively engaged on their phones. And to clarify, there isn't only the distraction of the smartphone at Buffalo Wild Wings. I counted over forty screens in the building, at least five different shows and games on, and there was music playing from the jukebox.
So what's my point? During this entire meal, those people at the tables were either on their phones or engaged in whatever game of their choice. There was very little conversation and if there was any conversation, it was meaningless and shallow passing of useless information that the receiving party forgot within seconds of interpretation.
But, Rachel, that's the whole point of BDUBS. You're not suppose to have real conversation. You're suppose to be watching the game!
When did that become an appropriate rebuttal? When did we promote the lack of communication and conversation with one another, especially during a meal? When did texting at the table and taking phone calls become an acceptable behavior at meal time? This kind of activity isn't limited to one specific restaurant. It happens anywhere and everywhere.
We're not connecting with people through technology. We may use the excuse that we "stay in contact" with people, but if I were to ask you when the last time you had a personal conversation with someone face-to-face, how would you respond? I would tell you that I have daily discussions with between ten to thirty of my Facebook friends, personally. And I have a total of 1,037 Facebook "friends."
It's becoming increasingly evident, not only in our lack of communication skills, but also our physical biology that we are becoming addicted to smartphones.
"The more 'connected' we are, the less we're connecting."
We're not only disconnecting from the physical world through our smartphone use, but we're also increasing the risks of developing mental disorders that can have a lifetime effect.
My challenge to you is to leave your phone, whether it be a smartphone or a dumbphone, home for a day. See how many times you go to reach for it. Try and strike up a conversation with a stranger. Test to see whether you experience withdrawal and are truly addicted to your smartphone. Just one day can make you realize how dependent you are on social networking to connect with people.
I don't mean researching and engaging in important information that was critical to learning. I mean, I was on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest every hour, and sometimes even several hours all at once.
It's not like any of this information was news to me, nor was I shocked that it occurred so often. I've been completely aware of my social network interaction for the last seven years. But it all seemed to accelerate and increase in December 2012, when I receive my first ever smartphone.
So when did this behavior become acceptable? Appropriate? Healthy?
I went to BDUBS tonight with a good friend and former roommate of mine. Over the last few months I have become increasingly aware of how distracted I am through the use of my iPhone in public settings. So, tonight, I decided to leave it untouched and in my purse. Checking Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr, and even Snapchat was off-limits for the next hour and fifteen minutes we were going to spend together.
We talked about church, class schedules, different teachers we had. We also talked about the new people in our lives and the old people. We talked about our pasts and things that hadn't been brought up in a while. The important part of the evening wasn't necessarily the conversation topics we covered, but the fact that I could recall the conversation an hour afterwards. I've only been able to do that a handful of times since December.
Over the last eight months, there were times when I was so busy updating pictures and statuses of who I was hanging out with and what we were doing that I missed out on actually enjoying my time with those people and participating in the activities we were engaging.
While I was sitting in BDUBS, I took a mental note of how many tables around me had easy access to their cell phones. The first point I should make is that every table within eyesight of me had at least one smartphone sitting out. The second point should be that at every one of those tables there were at least two people actively engaged on their phones. And to clarify, there isn't only the distraction of the smartphone at Buffalo Wild Wings. I counted over forty screens in the building, at least five different shows and games on, and there was music playing from the jukebox.
So what's my point? During this entire meal, those people at the tables were either on their phones or engaged in whatever game of their choice. There was very little conversation and if there was any conversation, it was meaningless and shallow passing of useless information that the receiving party forgot within seconds of interpretation.
But, Rachel, that's the whole point of BDUBS. You're not suppose to have real conversation. You're suppose to be watching the game!
When did that become an appropriate rebuttal? When did we promote the lack of communication and conversation with one another, especially during a meal? When did texting at the table and taking phone calls become an acceptable behavior at meal time? This kind of activity isn't limited to one specific restaurant. It happens anywhere and everywhere.
And now you can save yourself from your smartphone by buying this smartphone. It'll get you in, out, and on with your life. Except it won't.
We're not connecting with people through technology. We may use the excuse that we "stay in contact" with people, but if I were to ask you when the last time you had a personal conversation with someone face-to-face, how would you respond? I would tell you that I have daily discussions with between ten to thirty of my Facebook friends, personally. And I have a total of 1,037 Facebook "friends."
It's becoming increasingly evident, not only in our lack of communication skills, but also our physical biology that we are becoming addicted to smartphones.
"The more 'connected' we are, the less we're connecting."
We're not only disconnecting from the physical world through our smartphone use, but we're also increasing the risks of developing mental disorders that can have a lifetime effect.
My challenge to you is to leave your phone, whether it be a smartphone or a dumbphone, home for a day. See how many times you go to reach for it. Try and strike up a conversation with a stranger. Test to see whether you experience withdrawal and are truly addicted to your smartphone. Just one day can make you realize how dependent you are on social networking to connect with people.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Guys, it's totally possible to still make friends on the bus.
Let me start off by saying that I don't often forget my phone. It's crucial for me to have it on my person at all times for various reasons. Students are expected to have access to their emails 100% of the time in case a professor might need to contact them. I have to be available for contact from my boss, my project partners, etc. I also have a list of other important items I have to take care of including, but not limited to: Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Blogger, and Snapchat. Priorities, guys.
So, naturally, I'm attached to my phone a decent amount of the time. That doesn't mean that I don't know how to converse, though. I believe Brian brought up a good point the other day about how uncomfortable it makes people when you strike up conversations with them when you don't even know them. I'm happy to report that, that wasn't the case in my situation.
So here's the story: I am finished with classes every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:50pm. My final class is in Robert Bell and there is a MITS bus waiting for me on the other side of the road at approximately 1:51pm. I usually cut it close, but make it on that bus and head to my apartment. Several weeks ago I missed that bus by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin, so I was forced to take the bus that picks up around 2:14pm.
Note: While I battle with slightly-above-average cell phone addiction, I rarely use my phone when I'm riding the bus home. I like to be aware of my surroundings, but I also like to people-watch and see if they start up conversations with me or other strangers.
Anyways, once I hopped on the bus, I sat by a young lady with glasses on and messy hair in a bun. I had no idea who she was, but as it is with most MITS trips, you sit wherever there's a seat. I wasn't overly friendly with her. I mean, I was polite and asked to sit with her, but I wasn't certain how to strike up a conversation with her. Shortly after, a classmate and friend of mine hopped on the bus and stood next to our seat, alleviating the awkward social pressure of chatting with the person that was sitting half an inch away. We began talking about classes and homework when the conversation lead us to cats.
Needless to say, we talked about our cats, cat videos, cat-themed clothing, and cat fashion for the majority of the bus ride. My friend arrived at her destination shortly thereafter. Just as she hopped off the bus, the girl sitting next to me spoke up.
"So I heard you guys talking about cats and I just wanted you to know, I love cats."
You can only imagine where the conversation went from there. We exchanged stories and photos about our cats, crazy toys that we've created for our cats, similar tendencies that our cats have to one another. You name it, we covered it in that short 20 minute-long bus ride. I was so ecstatic to have met someone else who shared my immense love for cats that I forgot to properly introduce myself or ask for her name. All I knew is that she lived in the apartment complex next to me.
Weeks went by and I told other friends of mine the "crazy" happenstance that occurred that day. After thinking about it, it wasn't all that crazy. Or at least, I shouldn't see it as crazy. Why is it the social norm to hide behind your cell phone in a public place? When did it become appropriate to ignore the person you're sharing a bus seat with? What are we so afraid of and worried about that we become crippled at the idea of conversing with strangers? Is it because we're so addicted to our media that it actually controls us?
As many benefits we may gain from the Internet, Smart Phones, and Social Media, the machine is controlling us. We allow our lives to be dictated by the availability of people and services provided by the ever-available World Wide Web that we don't realize how disconnected we really are from reality. We only realize this when we forget those tools that provide that gateway to the "otherworld." We also miss out on opportunities with real people when we resort to hiding behind our phones. We miss out on what it really means to connect with someone face-to-face.
So, Rachel, what do you propose we do about this?
I PROPOSE WE CONTROL THE MACHINE! But seriously. The sooner we realize that we're the ones that have the power to dictate how we spend our time and how we use these resources meant for more than social networking, the better we can further our society and shape it into what we want it to become. And the less likely we are to end up lonely.
**UPDATE: I missed the MITS bus again yesterday and was forced to take the next one. I saw the cat lady again and found out her name is Jenny and what she's studying here at Ball State. Our conversation evolved and we were able to communicate this time without any use of our phones whatsoever. We also talked about topics other than our kitties. Guys, if it can happen to me (the mildly-addicted social networker), it can happen to you, too.
So, naturally, I'm attached to my phone a decent amount of the time. That doesn't mean that I don't know how to converse, though. I believe Brian brought up a good point the other day about how uncomfortable it makes people when you strike up conversations with them when you don't even know them. I'm happy to report that, that wasn't the case in my situation.
So here's the story: I am finished with classes every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1:50pm. My final class is in Robert Bell and there is a MITS bus waiting for me on the other side of the road at approximately 1:51pm. I usually cut it close, but make it on that bus and head to my apartment. Several weeks ago I missed that bus by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin, so I was forced to take the bus that picks up around 2:14pm.
Note: While I battle with slightly-above-average cell phone addiction, I rarely use my phone when I'm riding the bus home. I like to be aware of my surroundings, but I also like to people-watch and see if they start up conversations with me or other strangers.
Anyways, once I hopped on the bus, I sat by a young lady with glasses on and messy hair in a bun. I had no idea who she was, but as it is with most MITS trips, you sit wherever there's a seat. I wasn't overly friendly with her. I mean, I was polite and asked to sit with her, but I wasn't certain how to strike up a conversation with her. Shortly after, a classmate and friend of mine hopped on the bus and stood next to our seat, alleviating the awkward social pressure of chatting with the person that was sitting half an inch away. We began talking about classes and homework when the conversation lead us to cats.
Needless to say, we talked about our cats, cat videos, cat-themed clothing, and cat fashion for the majority of the bus ride. My friend arrived at her destination shortly thereafter. Just as she hopped off the bus, the girl sitting next to me spoke up.
"So I heard you guys talking about cats and I just wanted you to know, I love cats."
You can only imagine where the conversation went from there. We exchanged stories and photos about our cats, crazy toys that we've created for our cats, similar tendencies that our cats have to one another. You name it, we covered it in that short 20 minute-long bus ride. I was so ecstatic to have met someone else who shared my immense love for cats that I forgot to properly introduce myself or ask for her name. All I knew is that she lived in the apartment complex next to me.
Weeks went by and I told other friends of mine the "crazy" happenstance that occurred that day. After thinking about it, it wasn't all that crazy. Or at least, I shouldn't see it as crazy. Why is it the social norm to hide behind your cell phone in a public place? When did it become appropriate to ignore the person you're sharing a bus seat with? What are we so afraid of and worried about that we become crippled at the idea of conversing with strangers? Is it because we're so addicted to our media that it actually controls us?
As many benefits we may gain from the Internet, Smart Phones, and Social Media, the machine is controlling us. We allow our lives to be dictated by the availability of people and services provided by the ever-available World Wide Web that we don't realize how disconnected we really are from reality. We only realize this when we forget those tools that provide that gateway to the "otherworld." We also miss out on opportunities with real people when we resort to hiding behind our phones. We miss out on what it really means to connect with someone face-to-face.
So, Rachel, what do you propose we do about this?
I PROPOSE WE CONTROL THE MACHINE! But seriously. The sooner we realize that we're the ones that have the power to dictate how we spend our time and how we use these resources meant for more than social networking, the better we can further our society and shape it into what we want it to become. And the less likely we are to end up lonely.
**UPDATE: I missed the MITS bus again yesterday and was forced to take the next one. I saw the cat lady again and found out her name is Jenny and what she's studying here at Ball State. Our conversation evolved and we were able to communicate this time without any use of our phones whatsoever. We also talked about topics other than our kitties. Guys, if it can happen to me (the mildly-addicted social networker), it can happen to you, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)