Is why we'll never have nice things.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101117/sc_yblog_thelookout/if-the-science-guy-passes-out-and-nobody-tweets-it-did-it-happen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101117/sc_yblog_thelookout/if-the-science-guy-passes-out-and-nobody-tweets-it-did-it-happen)
We live in a time where who posts it on the internet first takes precedence over helping someone? Or in the case of the man who was shot, possibly saving their life instead of getting a better shot of the blood pool?
GOOD TIMES!!! :horrormirth:
WTF
:facepalm:
Guy bleeding to death in front of me lol #gangstabbing
Wow. I am going to delete my twitter account right now.
I love Bill Nye! :(
For the record, in the olden days before cell phones, people still didn't do anything. They just sat there stunned, and maybe whispered to each other.
Quote from: Nigel on November 17, 2010, 09:21:04 PM
For the record, in the olden days before cell phones, people still didn't do anything. They just sat there stunned, and maybe whispered to each other.
totally
twitter isn't to blame here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 17, 2010, 09:21:04 PM
For the record, in the olden days before cell phones, people still didn't do anything. They just sat there stunned, and maybe whispered to each other.
totally
twitter isn't to blame here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
Exactly.
The "Kids These Days Are So Terrible" meme rears it's ugly head again.
Well if I can't go off half-cocked and overreact, what else would I have left in life?
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 09:40:45 PM
Well if I can't go off half-cocked and overreact, what else would I have left in life?
Well, your Twitter account for starters.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 17, 2010, 09:21:04 PM
For the record, in the olden days before cell phones, people still didn't do anything. They just sat there stunned, and maybe whispered to each other.
totally
twitter isn't to blame here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
Also, I don't think that because there's a name for the phenomena means that these people should feel morally just for their actions. A lot of people probably thought that someone else was going to call the cops to help Kitty Genovese, but all it would have taken was ONE. Same with Bill Nye here.
Certainly Twitter itself is not to blame here, but a lot of the mindset of Twitter
is. Remember, these people didn't just sit there in stunned silence, they TWEETED about it. There is some form of spectator sport in that, and I would rather distance myself from it, before I see some indication of that in myself.
You're better off making a conscious effort to not act like a bystander. That's what I do.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 17, 2010, 09:46:42 PM
You're better off making a conscious effort to not act like a bystander. That's what I do.
I intend to. I already found Twitter to be a less entertaining form of masturbation, but now I can't help but feel slimy when I think about it. It was horrendous during our recent election in Toronto. This is just the capper.
Yup.
I've never had a Twitter account. Didn't see any point in having one. Don't really see the point of Twitter at all, actually.
I wasn't trying to blame twitter in any way.
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 17, 2010, 09:49:57 PM
I've never had a Twitter account. Didn't see any point in having one. Don't really see the point of Twitter at all, actually.
When you talk to God, its called prayer. When God talks to you, its called schizophrenia. When you talk to yourself, its called Twitter.
I don't microblog, and I didn't really see the point of it, but our old pal Shii (one of the original coders of 4chan and custodian of the Discoridanism wikipedia entry) has some (possible) insight
he writes:
http://shii.org/knows/Microblogging
Dear reader, I am embarrassed. For over year I dismissed microblogging as an utter waste of time. Finally, sometime last month, I stumbled upon an article (http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/2007/07/how-social-netw.html) that explained to me the social purpose of microblogging.
QuoteWho on earth cares? What kind of communication is this? Can it be that we are using the internet to issue trivial facts about ourselves? Facts? The "fact" that I am entertaining the cat is so staggeringly unimportant it fails to interest even the cat.
But there is another, anthropological, point of view. Exhaust data is, I think, a clear case of "phatic communication." This is communication with little hard, informational content, but lots of emotional and social content. Phatic communications doesn't get much said, but it has social effects so powerful, it gets lots done.
Of course! You don't microblog because of some deep-seated insecurity and desire for people to respond to you (unless if you're Scoble). You microblog to remind people that you're alive-- it's the Internet equivalent of saying "hi" to a friend on the street and making 10 seconds of small talk. If you were actually trying to get a point across, the 140 character limit would be a gross insult to your speaking abilities. But if you just want to light up a corner of someone's screen for a second, 140 characters is a good maximum. You say "oh hey, it's my buddy!", respond if it's pertinent to something you know, but otherwise move on.
I'm not sure why I don't naturally recognize phatic communication. It took me a while in high school to even talk to people normally. But now I hope I have conveyed to any confused readers why microblogging is not a waste of time. Granted, it may not be newsworthy very often. But conversations rarely are.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I wasn't trying to blame twitter in any way.
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Human compassion is a funny thing.
If you're the only person who is immediately available for help, you'd probably spring into hero mode. The more people who might do it instead, the less likely you will.
Old subject, just mentioning because you seem to think human compassion has changed somehow.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Yup. My ipod makes me act like a terrible idiot monster. True fact.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I wasn't trying to blame twitter in any way.
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Have you seen the tv show 'what would you do?'
And something I noticed when I attempted to help a two teenages at the bus stop. People don't like to be the first person to act, but they want to be the first person to post
Maybe if we praised heroism more in this culture. Fat chance of that.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 17, 2010, 10:15:54 PM
Maybe if we praised heroism more in this culture. Fat chance of that.
I doubt it.
How many people have wanted to be Batman, Superman, the X-men and so on? Millions? Billions?
Maybe if we had more babies in classrooms (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/fighting-bullying-with-babies/) though.
That's crazy and striking and completely out of left field!
Did someone tip you off how to sell ideas to me? :lulz:
ETA: goanna research this more and add this to my bag of interesting things to bring up at random.
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 17, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I wasn't trying to blame twitter in any way.
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Have you seen the tv show 'what would you do?'
Yes I have and some of their scenarios are downright vomit inducing.
I understand life isn't all peaches and cream. I'm not stupid. However, there is no crime for having the basic compassion to try to help a man lying and dying on the street, or to see if the person on the stage who just fell out is still breathing. People haven't always been this way. I wasn't raised to be that way.
They had a bunch of kids record this bully beating up a "special needs" kid on the schoolbus here. People were outraged that the kids taping it were in trouble. I told my kids at the time they would have no clue what trouble was if I ever found out they had stood by and let something like that happen. AND DO NOTHING? Fuck that.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PMBullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
That's pretty much standard levels of sarcasm for here. You might do well to
i dunno
not take it so seriously.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting..
You're a crusty one, aren't you? Did you lurk at all here before deciding to start posting?
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 17, 2010, 10:15:54 PM
Maybe if we praised heroism more in this culture. Fat chance of that.
Maybe if we had real heores to praise? Used to be our military, at one time in America's history it was our country's leaders.
So here comes the times have changed yada yada....
Yes times have changed, the world has evolved. So here is a question, has compassion gone the way of our tails? Or was it taught to begin with and now is no longer seen as a necessary emotion?
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 17, 2010, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PMBullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
That's pretty much standard levels of sarcasm for here. You might do well to
i dunno
not take it so seriously.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting..
You're a crusty one, aren't you? Did you lurk at all here before deciding to start posting?
Christ on a fucking crutch how can one be snarky and not be accused of getting all butthurt?
I've lurked here for years!
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Yeah, I read the same... seemed to indicate that violence is just easier to find out about now. More news coverage from around the world, etc... not too long ago people didn't hear about things that happened farther than 50 miles or so from where they lived.
I think that insularity is a survival skill in the modern jungle
I confess to passing car accidents, ignoring beggars, and voting by die roll
my girlfriend Chloe is a really compassionate type. When she sees somebody suffering she really feels right alongside with them. I have met few people as charitable as her. And somehow it constantly bites her in the ass. Like for example there's this kid Frank she used to have classes with.
Frank was a little autistic and had trouble making friends. He had a bad past of being abused and manipulated. He talked frequently of killing himself. It broke Chloe's heart. She decided to be his only friend. She hung out with him every day and begun to teach him how to live. how to cook, how to make appointments, how to not sweat the little stuff...
But Frank's problems consumed Chloe's life. He was sending her over 200 text messages per day, needing her contact constantly. She spent hours checking him into suicide wards and picking him up when he got out, only to drive him back the following week. Frank's therapist couldn't handle that he seemed to require 5+ hours of therapy per day and "dumped" him. Frank told Chloe she was the only reason he wasn't killing himself. The desperate texts increased. He'd call her up at 3:30 in the morning to talk for an hour and a half about the stuff going through his mind. She couldn't take it any more.
In the end Chloe had to cut off the friendship. She didn't allow herself to feel bad about it. It steeled her in a way... it made her realize that she can't take responsibility for everybody's burden, she has to get her own shit squared away first. And in the long run it made her more hesitant to help out strangers.
I find the whole episode incredibly sad. But we live in a world full of sad, wounded animals. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to watch somebody get stabbed or have a stroke and not do anything. But if we open our hearts to everybody that needs them, we will have nothing left for ourselves. We cannot address every injustice, every malice, every bastard out there. There are too many. So we have to prioritize.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 10:46:41 PM
I think that insularity is a survival skill in the modern jungle
I confess to passing car accidents, ignoring beggars, and voting by die roll
my girlfriend Chloe is a really compassionate type. When she sees somebody suffering she really feels right alongside with them. I have met few people as charitable as her. And somehow it constantly bites her in the ass. Like for example there's this kid Frank she used to have classes with.
Frank was a little autistic and had trouble making friends. He had a bad past of being abused and manipulated. He talked frequently of killing himself. It broke Chloe's heart. She decided to be his only friend. She hung out with him every day and begun to teach him how to live. how to cook, how to make appointments, how to not sweat the little stuff...
But Frank's problems consumed Chloe's life. He was sending her over 200 text messages per day, needing her contact constantly. She spent hours checking him into suicide wards and picking him up when he got out, only to drive him back the following week. Frank's therapist couldn't handle that he seemed to require 5+ hours of therapy per day and "dumped" him. Frank told Chloe she was the only reason he wasn't killing himself. The desperate texts increased. He'd call her up at 3:30 in the morning to talk for an hour and a half about the stuff going through his mind. She couldn't take it any more.
In the end Chloe had to cut off the friendship. She didn't allow herself to feel bad about it. It steeled her in a way... it made her realize that she can't take responsibility for everybody's burden, she has to get her own shit squared away first. And in the long run it made her more hesitant to help out strangers.
I find the whole episode incredibly sad. But we live in a world full of sad, wounded animals. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to watch somebody get stabbed or have a stroke and not do anything. But if we open our hearts to everybody that needs them, we will have nothing left for ourselves. We cannot address every injustice, every malice, every bastard out there. There are too many. So we have to prioritize.
Absolutely, you can't help everybody all the time, nor should you... it turns us into a culture of mommys and babies if we are constantly helping everyone all the time, but if someone collapses on stage, perhaps someone should help him. Tiny Tim died that way, FFS.
Which brings up another question... where the hell were the people who organized this talk? Surely there should have been someone backstage that could have run on to assist?
EDIT TO ADD: Again, it's not exactly that nobody jumped up to help that bothers me, its that nobody jumped up to help because they were busy tweeting about it. Somethings not right there.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Yeah, I read the same... seemed to indicate that violence is just easier to find out about now. More news coverage from around the world, etc... not too long ago people didn't hear about things that happened farther than 50 miles or so from where they lived.
Which may be why people don't seem to care anymore. We've become immuneto that which we see evey day?
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Yeah, I read the same... seemed to indicate that violence is just easier to find out about now. More news coverage from around the world, etc... not too long ago people didn't hear about things that happened farther than 50 miles or so from where they lived.
Which may be why people don't seem to care anymore. We've become immuneto that which we see evey day?
I think a lot of people care.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 10:46:41 PM
I think that insularity is a survival skill in the modern jungle
I confess to passing car accidents, ignoring beggars, and voting by die roll
my girlfriend Chloe is a really compassionate type. When she sees somebody suffering she really feels right alongside with them. I have met few people as charitable as her. And somehow it constantly bites her in the ass. Like for example there's this kid Frank she used to have classes with.
Frank was a little autistic and had trouble making friends. He had a bad past of being abused and manipulated. He talked frequently of killing himself. It broke Chloe's heart. She decided to be his only friend. She hung out with him every day and begun to teach him how to live. how to cook, how to make appointments, how to not sweat the little stuff...
But Frank's problems consumed Chloe's life. He was sending her over 200 text messages per day, needing her contact constantly. She spent hours checking him into suicide wards and picking him up when he got out, only to drive him back the following week. Frank's therapist couldn't handle that he seemed to require 5+ hours of therapy per day and "dumped" him. Frank told Chloe she was the only reason he wasn't killing himself. The desperate texts increased. He'd call her up at 3:30 in the morning to talk for an hour and a half about the stuff going through his mind. She couldn't take it any more.
In the end Chloe had to cut off the friendship. She didn't allow herself to feel bad about it. It steeled her in a way... it made her realize that she can't take responsibility for everybody's burden, she has to get her own shit squared away first. And in the long run it made her more hesitant to help out strangers.
I find the whole episode incredibly sad. But we live in a world full of sad, wounded animals. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to watch somebody get stabbed or have a stroke and not do anything. But if we open our hearts to everybody that needs them, we will have nothing left for ourselves. We cannot address every injustice, every malice, every bastard out there. There are too many. So we have to prioritize.
This.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Yeah, I read the same... seemed to indicate that violence is just easier to find out about now. More news coverage from around the world, etc... not too long ago people didn't hear about things that happened farther than 50 miles or so from where they lived.
Which may be why people don't seem to care anymore. We've become immuneto that which we see evey day?
I think that's part of it. I like to point this out to people who think that we are living in the End Times. They talk about how all the calamity in the world is increasing in frequency and intensity. It's really just exposure. Compare number of deaths in WWII to the War on Terror. And yet the War on Terror is taken into evidence as God's wrath upon a sinful world.
I actually much prefer living in the relatively safe 21st Century than the 20th Century.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 09:54:54 PM
I don't microblog, and I didn't really see the point of it, but our old pal Shii (one of the original coders of 4chan and custodian of the Discoridanism wikipedia entry) has some (possible) insight
he writes:
http://shii.org/knows/Microblogging
Dear reader, I am embarrassed. For over year I dismissed microblogging as an utter waste of time. Finally, sometime last month, I stumbled upon an article (http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/2007/07/how-social-netw.html) that explained to me the social purpose of microblogging.
QuoteWho on earth cares? What kind of communication is this? Can it be that we are using the internet to issue trivial facts about ourselves? Facts? The "fact" that I am entertaining the cat is so staggeringly unimportant it fails to interest even the cat.
But there is another, anthropological, point of view. Exhaust data is, I think, a clear case of "phatic communication." This is communication with little hard, informational content, but lots of emotional and social content. Phatic communications doesn't get much said, but it has social effects so powerful, it gets lots done.
Of course! You don't microblog because of some deep-seated insecurity and desire for people to respond to you (unless if you're Scoble). You microblog to remind people that you're alive-- it's the Internet equivalent of saying "hi" to a friend on the street and making 10 seconds of small talk. If you were actually trying to get a point across, the 140 character limit would be a gross insult to your speaking abilities. But if you just want to light up a corner of someone's screen for a second, 140 characters is a good maximum. You say "oh hey, it's my buddy!", respond if it's pertinent to something you know, but otherwise move on.
I'm not sure why I don't naturally recognize phatic communication. It took me a while in high school to even talk to people normally. But now I hope I have conveyed to any confused readers why microblogging is not a waste of time. Granted, it may not be newsworthy very often. But conversations rarely are.
Good points! I've found that social networking such as Facebook helps my large and far-flung family and social group feel connected and part of each other's lives in a way that would be impossible to maintain via telephone or email. Even my long-lost brother has a chance to see a little window into not only my life and what I think about, but what my friends think about it, and how we interact. On a social-connection/personal bonding level, these things are effective.
I would like to posit that people actually do care, and in fact care more than they have in the past.
At least in the US, violent crime is down. WAY down. Bullying, which used to be "a part of growing up", is now considered a serious problem. Yes, we still have the bystander effect, but now people get upset about it.
We have some other pretty serious problems... like our nation's eagerness to go to war, treat undocumented immigrants like animals, and detain civilians... but in terms of compassion WITHIN our society, evidence is that things are getting better.
Never drop a quarter for someone sitting there
But once gave a hundred bucks to a homeless girl playing the violin
Quote from: Pēleus on November 17, 2010, 11:38:40 PM
Never drop a quarter for someone sitting there
But once gave a hundred bucks to a homeless girl playing the violin
That's either a lot for a song, a very little for the violin.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:33:52 PM
Christ on a fucking crutch how can one be snarky and not be accused of getting all butthurt?
You don't come off as snarky, rather more as acidic and easily angered, without a sense of humor.
Just making an observation.
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore. They actually used to. I've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
I wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Can you provide any sort of evidence to back up your opinion that violence is more prevalent?
And compared to when exactly? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?
Because I've read some literature that made a strong case that actually, violence is less prevalent now than it ever was in history.
Yeah, I read the same... seemed to indicate that violence is just easier to find out about now. More news coverage from around the world, etc... not too long ago people didn't hear about things that happened farther than 50 miles or so from where they lived.
Which may be why people don't seem to care anymore. We've become immuneto that which we see evey day?
:cn:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 17, 2010, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 17, 2010, 11:38:40 PM
Never drop a quarter for someone sitting there
But once gave a hundred bucks to a homeless girl playing the violin
That's either a lot for a song, a very little for the violin.
Three songs actually and she had a great outlook and was short on a bus ticket
Signs of the end times, ITT.
I certainly care. I don't think it's a care issue.
Anyone ever been told by someone "don't get involved"? I have and I told that person that they suck.
I have to agree with Hoops on the twitter issue though. Sitting in silence, disbelief and shock are one thing. Fucking tweeting about what's going on while you sit there is another.
I love Bill Nye. That made me sad. :sad:
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 10:46:41 PM
I think that insularity is a survival skill in the modern jungle
I confess to passing car accidents, ignoring beggars, and voting by die roll
my girlfriend Chloe is a really compassionate type. When she sees somebody suffering she really feels right alongside with them. I have met few people as charitable as her. And somehow it constantly bites her in the ass. Like for example there's this kid Frank she used to have classes with.
Frank was a little autistic and had trouble making friends. He had a bad past of being abused and manipulated. He talked frequently of killing himself. It broke Chloe's heart. She decided to be his only friend. She hung out with him every day and begun to teach him how to live. how to cook, how to make appointments, how to not sweat the little stuff...
But Frank's problems consumed Chloe's life. He was sending her over 200 text messages per day, needing her contact constantly. She spent hours checking him into suicide wards and picking him up when he got out, only to drive him back the following week. Frank's therapist couldn't handle that he seemed to require 5+ hours of therapy per day and "dumped" him. Frank told Chloe she was the only reason he wasn't killing himself. The desperate texts increased. He'd call her up at 3:30 in the morning to talk for an hour and a half about the stuff going through his mind. She couldn't take it any more.
In the end Chloe had to cut off the friendship. She didn't allow herself to feel bad about it. It steeled her in a way... it made her realize that she can't take responsibility for everybody's burden, she has to get her own shit squared away first. And in the long run it made her more hesitant to help out strangers.
I find the whole episode incredibly sad. But we live in a world full of sad, wounded animals. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to watch somebody get stabbed or have a stroke and not do anything. But if we open our hearts to everybody that needs them, we will have nothing left for ourselves. We cannot address every injustice, every malice, every bastard out there. There are too many. So we have to prioritize.
Shit man. Sucks, but you're right, that's what it is.
Nicely worded, too, that's a good read.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 09:44:41 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
twitter isn't to blame here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
Also, I don't think that because there's a name for the phenomena means that these people should feel morally just for their actions.
Absolutely. It's among the most morally reprehensible qualities us human beings have.
Buildings burnt down to the ground because all the 200+ onlookers thought somebody else surely must have called the fire dept already, no sense in calling them again.
(heard from a psychologist friend, could have happened in NL, but it sounds more plausible than the Genovese case, so I figure it's true, otherwise it
could have easily happened).
QuoteA lot of people probably thought that someone else was going to call the cops to help Kitty Genovese
Actually, not only that. While it certainly plays a part, more factors were at play. There were plenty of actions that could have been taken besides calling the police that
would have been visible to onlookers, and nobody took those either (yelling out the window, actually going down and stopping it, etc).
It's even weirder and more gut-wrenchingly wrong than that, the onlookers didn't do anything,
because nobody did anything, and therefore that was probably the right way to behave in this situation that they had never encountered before and therefore looked for the behaviour of others to determine how they should behave.
Really. Combine it with some people's tendency to try and appear as if they know what they're doing even if they don't and you got poison.
That's the Machine again.
Quotebut all it would have taken was ONE.
That's true. As I said in the "Fear of Darkness"-thread, I have vowed to myself to be that one person, whenever possible.
That's one of the defenses against this rotten human monkey subroutine. Be that one hero person. The other defense is, when you are in trouble yourself (having a stroke at a concert/festival), single out a person from the crowd ("hey you with the red jacket") and tell them exactly what to do ("I want you to call a doctor") (there was a bit more in this approach from the Cialdini book "On Influence", but I forget).
QuoteCertainly Twitter itself is not to blame here, but a lot of the mindset of Twitter is. Remember, these people didn't just sit there in stunned silence, they TWEETED about it. There is some form of spectator sport in that, and I would rather distance myself from it, before I see some indication of that in myself.
I fail to see that point. It is bullshit, in fact. The same reasoning you would stop looking out windows after hearing of the Genovese case.
It's the people that were rotten. Whether they sat in stunned silence or were doing any other activity has nothing to do with it, or at least, it doesn't make the other activity rotten.
I get how you feel, it seems as if those people thought the tweeting was more
important than helping this person, and that would certainly make Twitter look very bad. But I think the examples above and the psychology behind this phenomenon show that it's not like tweeting somehow took precedence to otherwise having helped Nye.
Quite the contrary.
Because of the phenomenon, people looked to each other for what to do, and the situation got in a Deadlock and nobody did very much of anything. This is of course highly conflicting behaviour to a well-meaning individual (of which there were more than enough, in the audience), and cognitive dissonant situations like these makes humans (and many other animals btw) redirect their attention to unrelated behaviour.
Hence some of them started tweeting.
But you know what? A large part of the people without smartphones probably starting biting their nails or adjusting their clothes. In fact, I would bet there must have been at least a couple of people that had the audacity to get a little mirror and check their make-up during these events. It's all exactly the same thing.
The point is, these people were cunts, not bipeds, redirecting their behaviour to something unrelated. Don't blame the unrelated thing, though.
BTW, unless you actively promise to yourself to BE that person that breaks the spell and goes against the group behaviour, requiring you to get up and indeed become the center of attention in a group of perhaps hundreds, don't fool yourself by thinking "I probably wouldn't behave like that". The numbers don't lie. The audience had enough people in it that there were probably 5 other individuals that knew, and honestly believed they would never just sit and watch, just like you, and they still did.
Seriously. You are a monkey too, don't believe this type of programmed instinctual behaviour does not apply to you, because it does and it will. Instead, realize that the behaviour DOES apply to you, just like it does to anyone else, and that in order to counter it, it will require CONSCIOUS and DELIBERATE and WILFUL action in an uncertain situation that will go entirely against the grain of your instincts screaming at you to look at the group to see what you should do. You'll be fighting against your monkeybrain. okay that may be a bit of exaggeration, but it's better to expect an inner struggle than to believe you're such a decent human being that you'll surely do the right thing when the situation arises.
(BTW for people that have already been in these kinds of situations, and already been the helpful heroes, it may be different. But probably not the first time)
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Net on November 17, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 09:50:50 PM
I put the blame on the disappearance of basic human compassion for their fellow man.
Right, because not too long ago we actually danced naked in tropical forests in perfect harmony with nature, only taking breaks to snack on berries and give each other back massages.
It was only due to the advance of technology that transformed us into cold brutes, who would consider feasting on Bill Nye's eyeballs if he didn't come to fast enough.
Bullshit. I never insinuated anything so disgusting.
People do not give a flying fuck about anyone else anymore.
You said they used to. That something disappeared.
QuoteThey actually used to.
Oh look. There you did it again. Stop doing that, please.
Are you aware that they have found 6000 years old Egyptian hieroglyph scriptures that complain about current day's youth and their lack of morals and how surely everything must be going to shit now.
And there we are, 6000 years later, not having changed a single fucking bit.
QuoteI've seen it in action. As violence has become more prevalent, people have become numb. I never mentioned technology, it was part of the article. My disgust was not with Twitter who cannot control what the stupid fuckers post, but with humanity making the fucking posts. I have no fucking issues with technology. My issue is with the emotional lack in the humanity that surrounds us.
Okay, I mostly agree. Except that there's no reason to assume it used to be better or that it has gotten worse.
QuoteI wouldn't have stood there. In a group or alone, I would have tried to help in both situations.
Unless you actually have been in a situation like that (in a group) and KNOW you have been capable of acting against your human built-in instincts, that statement holds exactly zero value, because most people in the audiences of horrible incidents like these would have said exactly that, before they ever encountered a situation (in a group) like that.
I know I do, and therefore the only thing I can currently say and repeat is that I firmly vow for myself to try my best, go against my instincts and not just stand there, if I ever get into a situation like that. But I somewhat lack the arrogance and feeling of superiority over my fellow humans to bluntly state "I wouldn't have stood there" until I have been in such a situation and have proven myself to be capable of that.
And I don't believe that people used to be more capable of going against their monkeybrains than they are today. But maybe you can show us some evidence to how it used to be better?
QuoteI understand life isn't all peaches and cream. I'm not stupid. However, there is no crime for having the basic compassion to try to help a man lying and dying on the street, or to see if the person on the stage who just fell out is still breathing. People haven't always been this way. I wasn't raised to be that way.
Really I'm going to have to say :cn:
And as far as how you were raised properly, lots of people are. And they still stand by and do nothing.
QuoteThey had a bunch of kids record this bully beating up a "special needs" kid on the schoolbus here. People were outraged that the kids taping it were in trouble. I told my kids at the time they would have no clue what trouble was if I ever found out they had stood by and let something like that happen. AND DO NOTHING? Fuck that.
Very good. Did your kids already encounter a situation like that and have been able to act as you taught them? Cause as kids the inhibition might be lower, so it's a good time to get the experience. But if not, it's just all talk. And they are just "raised properly", just like some people in those audiences/crowds must have been, standing there, doing nothing, because nobody else did much of anything.
And it's disgusting and it's morally reprehensible. But I must repeat, unless you have actually BEEN THERE, the only thing you can do is firmly decide to act that way and be the one, and maybe you will, but it's pure arrogance to state with any certainty that you "wouldn't just stand by".
Quote from: Cramulus on November 17, 2010, 10:46:41 PM
Frank was a little autistic and had trouble making friends. He had a bad past of being abused and manipulated. He talked frequently of killing himself. It broke Chloe's heart. She decided to be his only friend. She hung out with him every day and begun to teach him how to live. how to cook, how to make appointments, how to not sweat the little stuff...
But Frank's problems consumed Chloe's life. He was sending her over 200 text messages per day, needing her contact constantly. She spent hours checking him into suicide wards and picking him up when he got out, only to drive him back the following week. Frank's therapist couldn't handle that he seemed to require 5+ hours of therapy per day and "dumped" him. Frank told Chloe she was the only reason he wasn't killing himself. The desperate texts increased. He'd call her up at 3:30 in the morning to talk for an hour and a half about the stuff going through his mind. She couldn't take it any more.
Damn. Please tell Chloe for me that this random person from the Internet said she is a great human being?
I wish that Frank would have lived in the Netherlands, he would have gotten a personal budget to buy a coach who would do the things Chloe did for him, except they'd be trained to do it for him and get paid. Additionally, unpaid friends and family doing this (and similar) work are called "mantle care", and can apply for additional benefits (like the "mantle care compliment", which is 250 EU in tax-free cash to buy something nice).
I get parts of these benefits myself, but whenever I hear stories like this I always get the idea that there are so many people out there that deserve them so much more than I do. (although frankly I don't know how deep in shit I would have been without that help, so maybe I did deserve it)
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 10:55:51 PM
Which brings up another question... where the hell were the people who organized this talk? Surely there should have been someone backstage that could have run on to assist?
Actually, maybe it wasn't there when you clicked it, but the article now has an Update at the bottom that explains quite a lot.
Apparently, Nye was only out for 5 or 6 seconds, which wasn't enough time for people to get beyond the first WTF, realize what's going on and jump up and help. Then Nye got up by himself, and almost immediately after that people from organisation/stage rushed up to check on him. I'm willing to bet that people only grabbed for their phones after those 5 or 6 seconds either, but we'll never know that.
QuoteEDIT TO ADD: Again, it's not exactly that nobody jumped up to help that bothers me, its that nobody jumped up to help because they were busy tweeting about it. Somethings not right there.
Yes. What's not right here is that that's not what happened at all. Even without the update of the article, I'm fairly sure that nobody would think "I'll tweet first and then I'll help him". As I said, they weren't helping first, and they were tweeting second. If they didn't have a smartphone they'd be biting their nails out of conflict-redirect-behaviour.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on November 18, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: Niamh on November 17, 2010, 11:00:48 PM
Which may be why people don't seem to care anymore. We've become immuneto that which we see evey day?
:cn:
No man, humans have been complaining about this for thousands of years now. That means it's an age-old wisdom, and therefore it's right: Modern society IS degenerate. It always has been!
We just don't care anymore, compared to some arbitrary cherry-picked moment in the past where people incidentally cared more than they do or did right at another, currently more current moment when people obviously cared less.
And that's a bad thing.
And surely it has nothing to do with that we remember good things from the past significantly better, and that we feel bad things in the present significantly (2-3 times, afaik) stronger.
No Net, we are fucked. Society is just not what it has been anymore. And it never was, and it never will. NOTHING will EVER be the same again!
Oh reminds me, one of these old Greek dudes, either Socrates or Plato or Archimedes or Aristotle .. one of them. He already knew, this new-fangled technology is going to be the end of us all. Seriously. If the common man starts to read and write, and start writing things down, surely they'll forget how to remember stuff!
:lulz:
Look at this man! Verily, he hath forgotten how to think!!
Yes, I have and still do try my damndest to help alone or in a crowd.
As for my kids, they've all received disciplinary action at one time or another for going after a bully.
Maybe violence is down from years ago, or maybe it is just that modern technology and the internet has put it in our face more than it has ever been. I grew up in a relatively small town compared to the city I live in now. Maybe that has as much to do with my perspective as anything.
I know that I personally wouldn't have stood there and watched a man die and not have tried to do something, even if it was just hold his damned hand so he knew he wasn't dying alone.
QuoteUPDATE: A USC student who attended the lecture wrote in to contest the assertion that students in the audience were tweeting and texting after Nye fell. He writes: "When Bill Nye fell, he was only down for a very brief 5 to 6 seconds. During this period, everyone was so confused and shocked, we assumed it was part of the show and no one could have, or did, know that it was a medical problem. It was our childhood hero, we did not want it to be a medical issue. Everyone was so riveted and confused, NO ONE reached for their phone. We wouldn't even know what to say, we had no idea why he had fallen anyhow. The whole auditorium was silent and on edge, we were at once concerned and confounded. Once he came to, apologized for falling, and stumbled while grabbing on to the podium, everyone realized the awful truth and stage hands jumped to the stage to assist him."
I was actually thinking THIS was probably what happened--it was a PERFORMANCE, and they probably thought it was part of the schtick and sat in stunned silence until it was clear what had happened. The action of twittering furiously instead of helping seemed off-base to me. Glad I was right.
The Messy Mya death...I'm wondering what undercurrents are actually in THAT situation in the Treme that we just don't have details about. The reason why I say that is the fact that there's a kill-or-be-killed desperation out there in NOLA right now...people are offed for no fucking reason. Spike Lee's follow up to his "When the Levees Broke" was a chilling tale of how little life means to people on the streets of N'Awlins these days. Messy Mya was obviously caught in that and lost his life because of it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 19, 2010, 09:00:28 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 17, 2010, 09:44:41 PM
Certainly Twitter itself is not to blame here, but a lot of the mindset of Twitter is. Remember, these people didn't just sit there in stunned silence, they TWEETED about it. There is some form of spectator sport in that, and I would rather distance myself from it, before I see some indication of that in myself.
I fail to see that point. It is bullshit, in fact. The same reasoning you would stop looking out windows after hearing of the Genovese case.
It's the people that were rotten. Whether they sat in stunned silence or were doing any other activity has nothing to do with it, or at least, it doesn't make the other activity rotten.
I get how you feel, it seems as if those people thought the tweeting was more important than helping this person, and that would certainly make Twitter look very bad. But I think the examples above and the psychology behind this phenomenon show that it's not like tweeting somehow took precedence to otherwise having helped Nye.
Quite the contrary. Because of the phenomenon, people looked to each other for what to do, and the situation got in a Deadlock and nobody did very much of anything. This is of course highly conflicting behaviour to a well-meaning individual (of which there were more than enough, in the audience), and cognitive dissonant situations like these makes humans (and many other animals btw) redirect their attention to unrelated behaviour.
Hence some of them started tweeting.
But you know what? A large part of the people without smartphones probably starting biting their nails or adjusting their clothes. In fact, I would bet there must have been at least a couple of people that had the audacity to get a little mirror and check their make-up during these events. It's all exactly the same thing.
The point is, these people were cunts, not bipeds, redirecting their behaviour to something unrelated. Don't blame the unrelated thing, though.
BTW, unless you actively promise to yourself to BE that person that breaks the spell and goes against the group behaviour, requiring you to get up and indeed become the center of attention in a group of perhaps hundreds, don't fool yourself by thinking "I probably wouldn't behave like that". The numbers don't lie. The audience had enough people in it that there were probably 5 other individuals that knew, and honestly believed they would never just sit and watch, just like you, and they still did.
Seriously. You are a monkey too, don't believe this type of programmed instinctual behaviour does not apply to you, because it does and it will. Instead, realize that the behaviour DOES apply to you, just like it does to anyone else, and that in order to counter it, it will require CONSCIOUS and DELIBERATE and WILFUL action in an uncertain situation that will go entirely against the grain of your instincts screaming at you to look at the group to see what you should do. You'll be fighting against your monkeybrain. okay that may be a bit of exaggeration, but it's better to expect an inner struggle than to believe you're such a decent human being that you'll surely do the right thing when the situation arises.
(BTW for people that have already been in these kinds of situations, and already been the helpful heroes, it may be different. But probably not the first time)
Very good point, Trip... I went off a little half-cocked there, which I have an alarming tendency to do. It's ridiculous, obviously... it's like people who threaten inanimate objects when they don't behave the way you want them too... which I also do. I should seek therapy.
Anyway, you have pierced through at least this layer of my insanity and shown that I stand here nude. And for that, I salute you, sir. (I would feel a tad sheepish to open a new Twitter account, though.)
Can remeber another time I put my neck out for another human
This dumb whiteboy with no street sense out on a date with his girl decides to be cute and asks a local about his tear drop tattoo under his eye. Myself noticed his green rag so figured this wasn't going to end well move to block the back exit of the bus. Without any talking la familar sucker punches the fool not once but three times. His gf starts crying, I stand up asking if there's a problem' as the boxer attempts to leave. The bleeding fool in back, appolized for being a smart ass and didn't want any trouble.
Grinning I let the ape off the bus without a fight
The Dutch spag is dead-on... I would bet money that not one single person actually pulled out their phone WHILE Nye was down. There's a mass paralysis that happens in situations like that, which makes actually doing ANYTHING but gawking kind of impossible. Interestingly, though, once one person does anything... literally, anything... it breaks the spell and people can act. You can actually do it just by shouting "hey" or standing up, if you have the presence of mind for it.
There's a corresponding trait in humans, too, which is that once one person helps, a lot of other people will be galvanized to help as well. Actually, a lot of multiple-drownings happen that way, unfortunately.
Quote from: Nigel on November 19, 2010, 10:46:08 PM
Interestingly, though, once one person does anything... literally, anything... it breaks the spell and people can act. You can actually do it just by shouting "hey" or standing up, if you have the presence of mind for it.
Good advice, this! Also if you don't immediately know what the right action would be.
Sorry to interrupt the misanthropy but the OP is bullshit.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9197559/No_Twitter_users_didn_t_fail_Science_Guy_?taxonomyId=16
QuoteThe gist of the story on the front page of Yahoo News last week was that Bill "The Science Guy" Nye passed out while speaking to several hundred University of Southern California students and those students callously ignored the stricken man's plight in favor of yammering about it on Twitter.
It was one of those "See how technology has warped our values" tales, only more baseless than is typical of the genre.From the story: "... what's odd about the incident isn't so much Nye's slight health setback as the crowd's reaction. Or, more precisely, its nonreaction, according to several accounts. It appears that the students in attendance, rather than getting up from their seats to rush to Nye's aid, instead pulled out their mobile devices to post information about Nye's loss of consciousness."
Immediately, I'm thinking this has the smell of baloney. Next paragraph: "Alastair Fairbanks, a USC senior ... told the Los Angeles Times that 'nobody went to his aid at the very beginning when he first collapsed — that just perplexed me beyond reason.' The student added, 'Instead, I saw students texting and updating their Twitter statuses. It was just all a very bizarre evening.' "
At this point you have a picture of Nye lying unconscious while no one – not an event organizer or audience member – moves a muscle except to whip out the iPhone to tell the world what happened in 140 characters or less. The Yahoo writer goes on to compare this transgression to the tweets that conveyed images of a dying murder victim in New Orleans and the famous video that made "don't tase me bro" a part of the lexicon. Tsk-tsk, what's wrong with young people today?
Hundreds of scathing comments followed, as did a spate of copycat stories, including one in the New York Daily News.
Now I wasn't there, but let's go to that Los Angeles Times account to see if there's more information. Yes, immediately before that damning quote from Fairbanks we get this: "Tristan Camacho, a USC senior ... said Nye was walking toward the podium when he collapsed mid-sentence. Then after about 10 seconds, he popped back up with much gusto and asked everybody how long he was out for and went on with a story about how a similar thing happened to him that morning."
Ten seconds? Exactly how many of the hundreds of self-absorbed tweeters in attendance were supposed to have rushed to Nye's side in those 10 seconds? (Reading this paragraph took you about 10 seconds.)
Aside from the one quote from the flabbergasted Fairbanks, neither the Times account nor one in the USC student newspaper took any issue with responsiveness of those in attendance. Moreover, the Yahoo story gives the distinct impression that the offensive tweeting was happening while Nye lay stricken ... for 10 seconds. Not likely.
What I am certain happened is that a number of those in attendance, having witnessed something unusual, used their phones to tell others. If you have been to any kind of public event in recent years you know that this kind of in-the-moment communication is about as noteworthy as a balky microphone.
And if you're going to accuse a couple hundred people of callous indifference born of technology obsession, you'd better bring more proof. Bill Nye would demand it.
:oops: