Originally published at Blood, Glory & Steel . Please leave any comments there.
.. or how the label will change gradually. Yesterday, eloquent and elegant, Today faux pas? I think you could fill a book with this theme, even entire shelves when it comes to communicating change in the digital age, but one thing I remember more than most others: The question for specific information.
What has previously been as interested in participating in small talk or even an expression of curiosity in a solid entertainment, is now almost an insult to the counterpart and the irrefutable proof of the unsuitability of his investigation skills.
but why this is so, why is a simple question like "What does [term]?" Perceived? It depends mE strongly correlated with the availability of information from reasonably reliable and neutral source. And the talk is of nothing less than the Internet itself "safe", will now take some of the head, "As much as the net is crap, that's the Worst source of information far and wide, not counting the propaganda of the corporations and special interest groups "
This statement is based on two false assumptions but which have been taken into the information age without subjecting them to the mind-Insp.
first An ever so bad, factually incorrect and incomplete information is regardless of the interpreter Worse than none.
second An own with the (limited) means-tested source is as bad as an unaudited.
The first misconception is based in the habit of avoiding embarrassment because you were misinformed or believe a lie gave. Nothing was frowned upon as being gullible, especially in discussions on an equal footing. The second is based on the usual disregard of its own resources regarding research and information access. Both issues associated that most people are only partially prepared its own errors and misjudgments admit openly and prefer to unconsciousness on supposedly their though false allegations insist to do so.
But how does it look like de facto: We live in a time where information is so readily available than ever before. Whether it is filtered properly, can be processed and reviewed, is indeed another story, but in terms of value-free, there is an oversupply. That is, theoretically, each to a certain degree of access to pretty much everything. The vielumsungene media literacy is in large part from the ability to separate manure from Most and opinions of the facts. This is more difficult today than ever. This is one of the reasons why it is adjacent to a modern communications to insult, not even to inform - it signaled his opponent so that one is for what they say can not be bothered or would like to utilize the information as such. Whether one puts away the
with a shrug out of habit, because he knows the whole story or whether he feels personally eaten by the fact, is again a personal thing. To me it shows again and again that people do not like to deal with what is offered them, which is often out of the situation is, therefore, be part of an approach that is of a certain ignorance against himself coined.
Another shortcoming was the two misconceptions based the lack of willingness at all to inform themselves first before asking is - ie before the process just described. This is indicated in my eyes nothing but "I'm too lazy to google, you do that but please just - to put it bluntly. This estimate is the time of his counterpart is less than its own and if not an insult the first order in the classical sense, then I do not know.
Some information processing more like the Romantics might see at the very beginning, the participation, interest in the views of their counterparts - but that's with caution enjoy. The information about a situation and the terms of the conversation to facts are not the same! The former part, the background is so much personal as objectified facts, it can be, but the latter is what is actually meant. Most aware of talks is leading this difference obviously, but those are the eloquenzantiquierten for this reason that it is usually not clear that there is one, and why this is important.
the contrary, they feel then just a link from the wiki so mean to them to return as they have asked for the raw content without pers reference crude, almost as precisely the sort of contempt of their own interest, ignoring completely that it has now made good form, in a statement simply to accommodate the necessary key words so a mentally and communicative skilled man is able under its aid, the source of his trust without consulting the need to be reduced to a mere allegation of his counterpart.
Certainly you can see that such and such, but as far as I remember, it has been formulated even though no one I know so many who think so and that too can remember them. Sites like googleitbitch and gidf.de are exactly for that reason were out, one might think.
Hail to the Kingdom of Steel!
Brother Arnoc
0 comments:
Post a Comment