Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It’s just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn’t even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don’t be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.
I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.
The point is text doesn’t convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.
You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
No need to take sides in the actual discussion
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It’s just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn’t even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don’t be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.
I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.
The point is text doesn’t convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.
You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
I realise your intention perfectly.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
Made me laugh, thank you.