Comments on: In defense of texting

By: janie

janie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:23:34 +0000

yeh, you have altered my world view to such a degree that I really pity these poor fools who didn't realize your power.

By: houlios

houlios — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:10:34 +0000

I prefer to think of it as interesting color commentary.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:12:41 +0000

What is this texting thing people keep talking about?

By: janie

janie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:23:34 +0000

yeh, you have altered my world view to such a degree that I really pity these poor fools who didn't realize your power.

By: houlios

houlios — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:10:34 +0000

I prefer to think of it as interesting color commentary.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:12:41 +0000

What is this texting thing people keep talking about?

By: shanusmagnus

shanusmagnus — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:27:16 +0000

That's the
issue, and people on both "sides" make this same mistake. Has
something been lost in the transition from the days when you stopped
by people's houses, gave your calling card to the housekeeper, and
were ushered inside for tea? Yes. Has something been gained
in that same
transition? Yes. Acting as if there was a norm, and now we've
departed from it, and that the departure (any departure) is
necessarily bad, is just too dumb for words. Almost. Since I've used
words.

By: Eden

Eden — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:18:57 +0000

People are terrible at explaining what exactly it is they're afraid of. This “texting is stupid” argument is just one of those situations…. and it falls neatly into the tiresome lineage of rants about how things were simpler/better then and more complicated/worse now. But what these complaints are really trying to convey is a fear that interpersonal communication and relationships are irreparably damaged by new modes of communication (like texting or this newfangled thing I've heard of called “the internet”), and that this is merely one outcome of new ways of living and of creating community. And so, yes, while texting/email is quite different from writing a letter, and while a phone call is not a face-to-face heart-to-heart, the real fear is that these other modes are being replaced. And in some ways I feel that the fears are unfounded (in the same way that the Kindle will never fully replace a flesh-and-blood book) but in other ways there is merit to the argument. How many of your friends are you able to share a room with when you want to?

By: Kira

Kira — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:58:45 +0000

What really bothers me is the approach to technology of any kind that insists every new technological thingamajig–be it texting, or the internet, or whatever–makes the world more “complicated.” For example, the assertion in the conversation that texting must mean I'm talking to “you AND you” and the implication that this is unique to the texting situation and must be negative. Saying something is “complicated” seems to have become (and may have always been) shorthand for “something I don't understand” and using complexity, or even accusations of too much complexity, as a reason for not understanding is lazy and dangerous. Why is the default position against texting that it shares unimportant information or that it might invite mulitple conversations at once? There isn't even a complex discussion of the possible negatives, which could be real. What about small screens being difficult to read? The economic implications of how much cell phone companies overcharge for the small amount of data that a text represents? The problem of learning a new typing system? The possibility of declaring a time lag in receiving information that may or may not exist in the same way for phone calls and phone messages? Some people can't even complain with any level of imagination.