rowyn

 I saw this article about how smartphones have turned us all into zombies who won't engage with the real world or the people around them boosted on Fediverse the other day. Independently, a friend linked me to this xkcd: 

 

Which was relevant to the topic, but less relevant than The Pace of Modern Life  -- it's long, so I'm not embedding it, but it's a series of quotes about how technology has destroyed the fabric of society, dated from 1871 through 1915. And yet here we are, more than a century later, claiming that society still had fabric left to be destroyed in the last few years. Maybe it grew back.

Perhaps it is unfair, or unkind, to liken every complaint about smartphone etiquette to complaints made 100+ years ago about newfangled magazines or inexpensive postage or whathaveyou. But good Lord, it is tedious to read people waxing on about how Back In My Day, Things Were So Much Better.

Do you know what I did before I had a GPS in my phone? Well, thirty years ago, I would write down a list of directions from someone who knew the way. And then, when I got lost, I would look for a payphone and hope that I had their number in my little book of contacts and also that I had the little book on me, so I could call and we could try to figure out where I was and how to get where I wanted to be. If that failed, I might stop at a gas station and ask a stranger for help. They wouldn't know either. I had some gigantic intricately-folded maps that could never be folded again if you unfolded them. They didn't help much. Twenty years ago, I printed out directions from MapQuest and then, when I got lost, I would stop and call for directions and write those down. Repeat as necessary. This was a little easier because by then I had a cellphone so at least I didn't have to find a payphone and change and my contact list.

Do you know what I do when I get lost while using GPS on my phone? Yeah, I don't know either, I can't remember the last time I got lost. My phone could run out of power but I have a USB cable to plug it into in my car, so it's not likely.

Yes, today, I still have vague mental map of the area where I live. Yes, I still remember the routes I use to get places after going a few times. No, my mental maps were not better in pre-GPS days. I was bad at this then and I'm bad at it now and the big difference is now it doesn't matter because I have an assistive device to do it for me.

Do you know what I did before the internet? I watched network TV and read books. So much network television. So many commercials. About one-third of air time for every network program was commercials. As a kid, I spent several hours every day watching TV. Cartoons, syndicated shows, primetime broadcasts. Was this good TV? Absolutely not. I remember one fantasy TV show with a sword-slinging main character and a sidekick who talked to animals and it had so little to recommend itself that I can no longer find mention of it. Web searches on the theme turn up "best-of" lists. Dear internet, this show was not in the top 100 for anything, including "shows with characters who talk to animals". I watched it anyway. It was there, and I was That Bored. In 1988 I went to college, discovered the internet*, and my TV-watching plummeted. 

Of course, I couldn't watch TV while I was out of the house. That's what books were for. Do you know what I did when I was on the bus, or walking down the sidewalk, or at a coffee shop, or during breaks between school classes (or during classes if I could get away with it), or at the gym between sets**, or literally just existing in any public space not designed for socializing? I read a book. I carried at least one at all times. Ideal purse size in the 90s: holds wallet plus two paperback books. Larger and it'd be too heavy. Had to make do with the book I was currently reading, plus a spare. 

Do you know what I didn't do? Talk to strangers if I had literally any choice whatsoever. I didn't even talk to acquaintances if I could help it. Why would I do that. They didn't want to talk to me. No one is at the bus stop for the hot happening social action. We're there to catch the bus. If I wanted to socialize, I could go somewhere designed for that purpose and likely to have a people with common interests. 

And you know what? You still today can go to places designed for socializing and guess what? People will socialize there! Lut and I used to go to the Warhammer store to play Kill Team, and I promise you, people did not bury their noses in their phones and ignore the world while there. They played games or talked about games, or painted miniatures, and generally interacted with the real world because that was why they had come. If you want to meet strangers or interact with people in the real world, please go to events at your local library or a dance club or a gaming night at a store or a knitting club in a coffee shop or whatever other pastime suits your fancy. The web will be happy to help you find any of these spaces meant for socialzing! 

Stop being nostalgic for a time when you thought social norms made it acceptable to demand the attention of strangers in all public spaces. We didn't want to talk to you then, either.

I don't know if the author is right and the social norm has changed over the last few years, making people's reactions angrier at being interrupted in public by strangers. But if it has: Boo-hoo. So sorry your personal preference for a social norm has been replaced by the personal preferences of others. But it is their preference. The social norm did not change out of spite for you, personally. It changed because people wanted to be left alone and not coerced into small talk about the weather by randos every time they left the house. They're not ignoring you now because they have a phone to stare at instead. They're ignoring you because now they can get away with it.

*Technically, in 1988 I started using the university VAX to talk and play games with other students of the university using the same VAX. I could've accessed usenet but never looked at it. I didn't start using the internet until I got an account on FurryMUCK in 1990 or 1991.
**Yes, the guy in the article who occupied a gym machine while scrolling on his phone for 15 minutes was being rude. He would've been rude staring at a gym TV or reading a magazine, too. Phones did not invent rude people
 

'Zine editor rejects ad calling for LGBQT submissions.

And what I really want to say is "He said it well."

I am not outraged. I am ... actually ... heartened. Yes, it would be nice if everyone agreed with me about everything. Yes, this is a subject near and dear to my bisexual polyamorous heart. But people are going to disagree with me, and when they do, this is how I want them to do it.

I don't know how to explain it properly. Yes, there are things that I can't imagine arguing in favor of without being offensive, no matter how polite or gentle the argument is. Making a serious and heartfelt plea for the legalization of slavery, or to give employers the right to kill their employees, or any number of ridiculous and some less ridiculous things, would alienate me from the arguer.*

But what the editor wrote is nothing like that extreme. Not just because of the way he said it, but because of the means by which he is acting on his conviction -- which is not a call for violent action or legal reform, but a simple "I won't promote or use space on my site to promote something I believe is wrong". I can respect that, just as I could respect, say, a Muslim site if it refused to display ads for a group promoting Christianity, or atheism.

I believe that polyamory, homosexuality, and biseuality are beautiful things, just as heterosexuality is a beautiful thing. I believe that gay marriage is right and proper, just as straight marriage is right and proper. Nothing anyone says to me at this point in my life is going to change my mind on that. I believe the world is moving towards a time when this will be the commonly-accepted view, when to argue otherwise will be as outdated as arguing in favor of slavery or against women's rights is today.

But even with those convictions, I don't have a problem with the debate, with people who have the opposite conviction and feel the need to take a stand on their principles.

Does that make any sense at all?

* You don't need to take that as a challenge, terrycloth. I'm just sayin'.