Skip to main content

Automatic Nonsesnsors

Imagine if you and each of your friends wrote random things on index cards all day.  You then made copies of them and whenever you saw your friend or passed by your friend's desk, locker, mailbox, etc. you gave him a copy of the index cards you wrote on that day.  Each friend also gave you a copy of her cards.  After a few exchanges with a few friends, you had a stack of cards to go through, reading each individual card (and they wrote a lot of them).  And, since you wanted people to see your cards, and since trading cards became a social task in itself, you often started trading with just about anybody.

Most of the messages were dumb and boring.  In fact, your friends knew that many other people would see these cards, so most were stripped of any kind of controversy or antagonism.  A number of the cards simply said "Here's something I like that I know many other people also like," and then other cards repeated the same thing and had things like, "Yeah!" written underneath the original message.

This mechanism masked itself as one that offered limitless connections and free exchange of ideas.  However, you were still bound by social mores, rules and expectations.  In fact, these new rules were even more oppressive because of the "sharing," because of the fact that so many people would see them and your "real name" was associated with them.  You had to manage your identity.  This diluted identity was mixed into the diluted identity of others:  friends, co-workers, family members, employers, and the paste was used to cast an echo chamber of mediocrity and conformity.  "Epic Bacon" index cards passed freely and multiplied while antagonistic and challenging cards were written off as cries for attention or worse.  It was hard to deny that this practice didn't effect everyone's thoughts, ideas and communication outside of the index card game.  And since you were already "communicating" with your friends, you did so outside of the index cards a lot less often.

The index cards were constructed, so maybe sterile facts were being communicated, but hard to digest, revolutionary or dangerous ideas were certainly avoided.  You eventually became something like a tabulator.  A tabulator for facts and averages of what people like.  A tabulator for facts and mediocrity.

Imagine the tedium.  This is social networking.  Aren't we lucky to live in the future where tedium and conformity are automated and delivered through computer screens and false kinship?  Isn't it amazing that we shape ourselves to be more and more like computers and so bring ourselves closer to the ridiculous dream that they are "more and more like us?"

Comments

  1. 7 Best sites to play for real money on the Go? - ChoEomachine
    Go 카지노 to the live casino section. It is available on any of the major mobile apps, including Play'n Go, iosoccer, 메리트카지노 and Bingo.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Beautiful Constraints"

I'm starting to think that programmers who dip into the homebrew, demoscene and retro communities and come out talking about the beauty of programming with constraints are getting it slightly wrong. You want constraints? If you're in a programming or engineering profession, you already have them. Heck, if you're in any profession. But, I know programming/engineering professions best because I've been in them for like 20 years. Your constraints are: Horrible bosses, bad management decisions, a pathological Capitalistic enterprise, idiotic schedules, badly written existing code bases and technical debt, people at higher levels with political control that know a lot less than you, lack of creative or design control, etc. You want constraints? Probably also throw in: Non-existing or ineffective build and test automation, annoying auto-formatters, syntax requirements, unhelpful code reviews and nagging code review requests with people circumventing the tests to get past ...

The End of Story.

This is it.  The end of the movie.  The hero will have to use all of the cliched pithy wisdom that’s been spelled out for him by the older, wiser, less head-strong character who was surprisingly like him in his youth.  Older audience members can relate to both characters, and younger audience members are taxed to consider the wisdom of their elders more often.  All pretty much male-centric; the girl lead who seemed to completely be put off by the male lead has just about completely come around now, after the lull in the middle of the story where the hero’s sensitive side was exposed and he was vulnerable to change.  Finally embracing that change, in the apex of his final challenge, the young hero is compelled to apply the advice that was clearly and consistently broken down for him by the wise old male character and combine it with the sensitivity he’s learned from the female lead.  None of the base-line collateral characters believe in him.  The clear...