Dear Internet,
I love you for many reasons, some of which I will list below:
- You let me post stupid Flickr videos of myself. I am under no delusion of ‘coolness’ or poise, and gladly throw my dignity on the line for a laugh.
- I got hos in different area codes. (Or: I am able to maintain friendships all over the place, and successfully at that.)
- Gimme a few clicks and I am elbow deep in design and photography land, getting mad inspired.
- I have developed a robust bullshit detector due to exposure to lots of people and information, not all of which is worth my time.
- Three words: Digital. Circle. Jerks. (Not in the masturbatory sense, but more in my cherished tailored and narrow online community that enjoys the same stuff I do, and we nerdbond over links and videos to amuse ourselves)
Okay, I suppose that will do for now. This list has me thinking about the consequences of the internet/new media in a more meta way, but that merits another post at a different time.
S.W.A.K.,
Serene
5 Comments
LOL my new favorite term will be “digital circle jerk”. Not because of the naughty implication (though that too is funny) but because its so true in a metaphorical sense! There is an article over at the “Art of Manliness” website locate here: http://artofmanliness.com/2009/12/01/amusing-ourselves-out-of-our-manhood/ that amongst other MAN things makes great mention of something that goes beyond gender. The idea that the internet has allowed people to “tune out” those with whom they do not agree. I feel it is THAT dynamic that has contributed to the DCJ (as im now calling it) that you make reference to. Having a close group of geek friends to share dubbed star trek episodes is one thing, which is not such a big deal. But I have more friends that either listen to NPR and NEVER read the wall street journal, or ones that watch fox (pronounced faux) news and no other station at all! That is where the danger inherent to the DCJ comes into play.
That is exactly what I had in mind when I referred to my meta level thoughts. Now, I’m no traditionalist and I do not think that the Constitution is bond, but I think it’s pretty clear that the intention behind a lot of our freedoms (communications wise, anyway) was to create and maintain a marketplace of ideas. If we have this DCJ or narrowcasting going on, we are essentially tuning out that which does not amuse/entertain/pertain to us and our worldview. When it comes to politics or democracy, this is a dangerous thing.
It’s the same reason why when I walk through campus and see pro-lifers shoving disturbing photos in my hands, I just roll my eyes and move on. Yes, I think their cause is wrong and infringing on my rights as a woman, but I also respect their right to freedom of speech. And I figure the more offensive they are, the more rigorous debate it spawns because people are fired up about it.
#2 #5 It’s me!!! It’s me!!!
Would like to add a disclaimer to my previous comment. I’m usually more cogent that that, but I have a cold and am snowed in at my parents’ house. This means Italian TV blasting almost round the clock. It’s my dad’s only “entertainment.” Makes me rather batty and unable to concentrate…unless I blast music in my ears, but that would prove too anti-social.
Ok, there you have it. More consistent and important comments coming soon
You got it, pretty lady!