So on one hand, this sucks, but on the other I think I have been given insight into certain "truths". I only quote that because I'm not even sure what they are really, or if they ARE.
First of all, the internet blows in so many ways. It is also awesome, but of late I have been vexed by it's overwhelming ill effects...
-Before going in to anything opinionated, I guess I need a disclaimer of sorts. I am no more right than you, despite what I say and the tone in which I say (or type) it. There is truth in most everything, and a little truth and a lot truth are both right. Now, if you find yourself feeling more right than me on something, fine, just prove it. I suppose you can also disagree for argument's sake, but that being the case, I refer you back to the fact we are both probably right. I say much of what I do for effect. I say it to force your brain out of it's cage. If I offend you, or somehow unravel the fabric of what you hold dear, please feel free to let me know, or just go away. Although, I think that someone unwilling to face opposition to their ideas probably has weak ideas. BASICALLY: don't complain to me. I seek truth just like you, the difference being, I probably seek it harder. That makes me no more right than you. I am likely saying what I am saying ONLY to bother you.
So, the ill effects of the internet... I guess I can boil my current beef down to "social" networking. First of all
so·cial
[soh-shuh
l] 
Show IPA–adjective
1.
pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendlycompanionship or relations: a social club.
2.
seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly;sociable; gregarious.
–noun
1.
a person who is frequently in the company of, associateswith, or accompanies another: my son and his twocompanions.
2.
a person employed to accompany, assist, or live with anotherin the capacity of a helpful friend.
3.
Man, screw formatting!
a mate or match for something: White wine is the usualcompanion of fish.
Man, screw formatting!
The reason I laid out these definitions was to show that being "social" involves "companions", and companions seem to favor physical presence. Even food knows that!
Maybe the point has been made already, but there is need for more hammering at the nail.
An increasing amount of our "socialization" is spent online. I mean, for God's sake, I am writing this into a laptop instead of telling a close friend. (not that I haven't told a close friend exactly this recently) The point is that we are trying to do something who's intended players (companions) are not what they say they are. No matter the time or format, being remotely connected to someone (chat, phone, facebook, skype) will NEVER hold a candle to the physical presence of someone. Sure, the "advantages" of digital interaction can be argued, but we are animals, not machines. There are a thousand visible muscle movements, smells we don't even register in our conscious mind, not to mention the feel of skin, or the sound of a person's voice. We are taking these things from ourselves by investing time in a thin shell of what it is to be "social". There are only a certain number of hours in our lives, and "keeping in touch" with people, should not begin replacing touch. The physical presence of a person is too valuable to waste.
Get off of your computer and go talk to someone. Stop hiding behind text and chat and frickn blogs, and go look someone in the eye. Be a real person, not just a nice peripheral.
