Monday, July 16, 2007

Making Sense on the Dollar

It is a little known fact that the word "communication" was originally coined to mean "spreading of communist munitions". Back in the first few decades of this past century, people spoke very rarely; it was a concern that wanton free exchange of information would educate the masses and lead them to question the harsher aspects of capitalism. Thus, silence reigned supreme, and speaking was largely viewed as an insidious means of spreading Marxist insurgent notions. Movies of the era provide proof of this; only when profits began to fall did Hollywood allow its actors to speak on film, which was a large part of McCarthy's wrath against the industry a decade later.



Of course, capitalism is nothing if not a wily, adaptable beast, and today we find ourselves beset on all sides with new ways to communicate, all benefitting the "Al ighty ollar." Unfortunately, the proliferation of means of communication has outpaced our ability to establish solid societal standards behind these newfangled technologies. We forget that it takes time to make such decisions - Alexander Graham Bell was trying to figure out what kind of greeting to give when you answer the telephone, and his first idea was to rip off sailors with "Ahoy hoy", before "hullo" became ubiquitous.

So if I am to pretend I had the power to set standards (and given my megalomaniac tendancies, this is something I am well practiced at), here's what I would enforce regarding newer methods of communication:

Text Messaging:
It has become common place to use any craptacular mangling of words when sending text messages, but I don't see the justification here. Sure, it is not a fast method of typing in general, but that's no real excuse. If you're looking for faster, then just leave a voice mail. The only situations when you're permitted to type like "ur goin 2 stor lol?" is if there's an emergency or something. "OMG jim died car reck hug firez". The only thing I skimp on in my texts are punctuation marks (occasionally), if just because that can be more of a pain than most things. Also, since I abjectly refuse to pay 5 dollars per month for unlimited texting capacity, recieving each one costs me a dime. Maybe this is why I cringe at short, misspelled texts.



Emails:
Not much to say here, but one thing needs mentioning: how is it that fairly competent people can't spot the difference between an email hoax and an un-hoax? It just seems fundamentally obvious in the way these emails are written...even when it isn't a commercial pitch. For instance, some number of months ago an acquaintance sent me an email detailing the dangers of a new date rape drug that was finding its way into circulation and being used against women. All the email was trying to do was spread caution about drinking from untrusted sources, or leaving your drink vulnerable, etc - all reminders of caution that are important be pressed hard. But the email felt fake to me, so I looked up the new date rape drug that it was talking about...and sure enough, that was a hoax. I had no idea who the hell could have started this hoax and why - there are enough reasons now to practice due caution against date rape, why muddy a good message with made-up stories? Or was it just someone who enjoys spreading dis-information (the opposite of the dot-communism/Wikipedia effect)? Very strange, to me.

Instant Messaging:
IM is not like being on the phone with someone; you're not necessarily "in a conversation." People pick up and leave, or have computer/internet malfunctions, or get distracted by shiny things, or whatever. Unless you've been in a long back and forth conversation for some time, there is no need to apologize for taking a phone call, or for not responding with alacrity...this is mostly moot since my IM habits had dwindled down to a bare minimum from my college debate work procrastination glory days of yore, but it still bears mentioning.

Note #1 - One of the history lessons I gave in the early part of this post was true, another was false. Hopefully you can discern the two.

Note #2 - While writing, a song came on the radio station that Andy leaves on in his office (perhaps the most eclectic radio station I've ever heard...like someone smashed together an indie rock station today with a poppy alternative station from 1994)...it was Peter Bjorn and John, a band I haven't heard much of. This song is the title track from their album "Writer's Block", and it kind of rocks my shit. How have I not heard this before? Embarassing. I am elated to discover that they're playing at the avalon in early September. Other bands I'm pumped to see this fall: Animal Collective, Of Montreal!!!.



Note #3 - The very first picture in this post, believe it or not, was actually more offensive in the original version. This marks the first time I've ever edited a picture I've found online to be less offensive rather than more. I did make it more colourful, though.

No comments: