I turn forty years-old soon, yet here I am, about to write a piece that will probably be interpreted as one of those rambling multi-tangent, Grandpa Simpson stories from “back in the day” when “kids had more respect!”
It is one thing to see adults walking around like glassy-eyed zombies, but the epidemic of parents giving smartphones to their children at early ages will be the real apocalypse (in the original Greek sense of the word, at least).
I was at a 'tam-bun' last week, what would you call it, a 'blessing' ceremony, and there were all sorts of interesting things going on, but there was one boy of about 9 years old who spent the entire 3 hours glued to his phone, scrolling like a maniac, oblivious to anything else, irritable if spoken to, and making multiple significant bad neural connections in his brain. The boy is just a passive receptacle for confected rubbish.
No interaction, no curiosity, no urge to explore, no intelligence, no wonder, no creativity, no humanity.
It's the Information Age. The kid's at an age when he's supposed to be soaking up knowledge. Instead he's playing Angry Birds for the dopamine hit. Kids would do better if they were raised by coyotes.
By the way, on this subject, I recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "Anxious Generation", which is all about the damage that smartphones (and the consequent lack of natural children's play) is doing to younger generations now. To get a flavour of it, you could listen to a podcast called Triggernometry, where Haidt discusses the topic and goes as far as suggesting "civilizational collapse."
In Walmarts, between the doors to the parking lot and store, there's a big vestibule area that's maybe 20' deep. The other day on the way out I got through the first set of doors and then had to stop because the same pack of teens/20's douchebags who had been yukking it up in the store the whole time I shopped were now congregating between the door sets, blocking everyone from coming and going while they showed each other what they'd bought, even though they'd all just shopped together. Walmart always puts me in a bad mood anyway, and I hate people who act like shopping is the peak social event of their day, so when "Excuse me" didn't work I raised my voice and said, "Get out of the way! Have your fucking meeting someplace else." Did I descend to their level? Did I just add to the world supply of rudeness? After a half hour of watching them screw off in the store, throwing things around, did I care?
I'm 60. My "back in my day" rap involves being in a store with my father, who, if he saw that I was inconveniencing another shopper through my inattention, would grab me by the arm, yank me out of the person's way, and snarl, "Get your head outta your ass." Which explains a lot of my issues today, but walking through a store like I'm the only one in it isn't one of them. Is that selflessness, to be as mindful of other people's time and convenience as I am of my own? I call it rational self-interest. You see what happens when people are trained to believe that their self-interest is bad or unimportant: The scope of their awareness extends about two inches in front of them on a good day. Most of the social pathologies you deplore are a result of people's profound lack of self-respect, self-regard, and self-interest. That's not really a paradox: Zeroes and non-entities who hate themselves hate everyone else, too, and being HUA douchebags is how they show it.
My definition of it is "to classify or include in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle." Etiquette includes chivalry and chivalry includes etiquette. They're synonymous.
It is one thing to see adults walking around like glassy-eyed zombies, but the epidemic of parents giving smartphones to their children at early ages will be the real apocalypse (in the original Greek sense of the word, at least).
I was at a 'tam-bun' last week, what would you call it, a 'blessing' ceremony, and there were all sorts of interesting things going on, but there was one boy of about 9 years old who spent the entire 3 hours glued to his phone, scrolling like a maniac, oblivious to anything else, irritable if spoken to, and making multiple significant bad neural connections in his brain. The boy is just a passive receptacle for confected rubbish.
No interaction, no curiosity, no urge to explore, no intelligence, no wonder, no creativity, no humanity.
That's so sad. Indeed, 'smart phones' + facemasks is rather detrimental to society and the mental health of children and adults alike.
I would use much stronger language than 'rather detrimental'.
If it falls short of 'utterly catastrophic', I will be surprised.
It's the Information Age. The kid's at an age when he's supposed to be soaking up knowledge. Instead he's playing Angry Birds for the dopamine hit. Kids would do better if they were raised by coyotes.
And should also be soaking up many intangibles to do with socialization, appropriate behavior in groups, and general personal development.
By the way, on this subject, I recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "Anxious Generation", which is all about the damage that smartphones (and the consequent lack of natural children's play) is doing to younger generations now. To get a flavour of it, you could listen to a podcast called Triggernometry, where Haidt discusses the topic and goes as far as suggesting "civilizational collapse."
I will check it out, thanks for the recommendation.
"rebreathing their CO2" and I laughed again. Really a funny post. Yes a smirk happened.
In Walmarts, between the doors to the parking lot and store, there's a big vestibule area that's maybe 20' deep. The other day on the way out I got through the first set of doors and then had to stop because the same pack of teens/20's douchebags who had been yukking it up in the store the whole time I shopped were now congregating between the door sets, blocking everyone from coming and going while they showed each other what they'd bought, even though they'd all just shopped together. Walmart always puts me in a bad mood anyway, and I hate people who act like shopping is the peak social event of their day, so when "Excuse me" didn't work I raised my voice and said, "Get out of the way! Have your fucking meeting someplace else." Did I descend to their level? Did I just add to the world supply of rudeness? After a half hour of watching them screw off in the store, throwing things around, did I care?
I'm 60. My "back in my day" rap involves being in a store with my father, who, if he saw that I was inconveniencing another shopper through my inattention, would grab me by the arm, yank me out of the person's way, and snarl, "Get your head outta your ass." Which explains a lot of my issues today, but walking through a store like I'm the only one in it isn't one of them. Is that selflessness, to be as mindful of other people's time and convenience as I am of my own? I call it rational self-interest. You see what happens when people are trained to believe that their self-interest is bad or unimportant: The scope of their awareness extends about two inches in front of them on a good day. Most of the social pathologies you deplore are a result of people's profound lack of self-respect, self-regard, and self-interest. That's not really a paradox: Zeroes and non-entities who hate themselves hate everyone else, too, and being HUA douchebags is how they show it.
Etiquette is now a synonym for chivalry?
When hasn't it been? It at least subsumes the idea of chivalry.
You must have a totally different definition of subsume than I do.
My definition of it is "to classify or include in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle." Etiquette includes chivalry and chivalry includes etiquette. They're synonymous.
Subsumption precludes synonymonity.
You must have a totally different definition of synonymonity than I do.
Two concepts included under a broader category can be synonymous.
Synonymonity disappears in broadening.