When conservatists speak of things that are new about our world, they tend to point out a few ways that the change hurts us, completely ignore all the ways that it improves our world and lazily conclude that we were better off in the good old days. You have to weigh the bad with the good if we're going to come to any value statement about technology's affect on our cognitive potential. As such, I don't give a sopping cunt about a string of case studies to prove that technology "is not as positive as we might think" (which, Jesus Christ, is about as tepid as a thesis could possibly be).Originally Posted by !Luck
Inn uther knews, beeing abel 2 spell correctlee iz the leest usefull end most over-emphisized skill inn the world. If spelling were to become non-standardized overnight, we would all be perfectly fine as an intellectual society (communication would become slightly less efficient, but things would be so close to unchanged, that it is very very very very very easy to outweigh that bad). So when 1 of the 3 case studies is about how we're not spelling as well without spell check, I give even less of a sopping cunt. When the other two case studies involve Innuits hunting caribou and an over-reliance on calculators (an obviously silly point if the author's willing to consider the good along with the bad he highlights), then I'm really left with a flaccid member in my hand, lazily lulling side to side.
Reply With Quote