What is the new - "opiate of the masses"

[Glomung]

There are so many, it is anything that distracts a person from reality.
Especially in the Western world, most modern people live in a illusionary world, a bubble of nonsense created by media and culture that insulates them from the real issues of the world.

It has gotten to the point that it is just short of impossible to have a meaningful conversation about any topic with a member of the “unwashed masses”, their minds have been so dulled, their beliefs so rooted in the propaganda of the day, that they cannot begin to see the reality of what goes on around them. It is as if they are on opium, walking in dreams of blissfull stupidity.

 

[Captain_America]

New opiate of the masses = consumerism.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

New opiate of the masses = consumerism.

Close – I would say sports, beer, and shopping.

 

[JRKH]

Close – I would say sports, beer, and shopping.

Beer???

Best not say that around parish festival time in my town…Beer, Brats and Bingo…

And for those not familiar with German food…that’s pronounced brawts (as in sausage) not braats (as in undisciplined children)…

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We have fired people at my company because they cannot control their addiction to the rectangle and use it at the wrong times. When you get to the point that you’ll choose your rectangle over your job, you’ve crossed the line.

It’s the priorities of the conversation that’s really the issue isn’t it? One thing I’ve learned in marketing is that medium doesn’t really matter so much. I could have a lively chat whether it’s online or with a real person and it’s still the same conversation. In essence, it’s communication and I just feel that this thread has this line of thought that says one medium is somehow more ‘real’ or ‘enriching’ than the other.

Sure if I wanna verify you are who you say you are, I’d take it live. What else though? Is that the only benefit of making it real? That doesn’t even rule out webcam chats and cellphone calls.

I just don’t see how medium has a direct impact on priority. If a more important work conversation is happening on my FB (and it has) then no amount of ‘live interaction’ is winning against the rectangle.

To All:
Why would it not be that the live conversation in front of you has priority over The Rectangle, unless some overriding urgency in your life (hospital, family crisis, professional on-call availability) legitimately takes precedence?

Oh there can be plenty of cases in a non-professional setting. If we’re talking social interaction, I’ll take the conversations I get here online than the ones I’ve had to tolerate when interacting with my brother’s peers.

And even in more amiable settings (say when I’m with closer friends or work peers), the conversation isn’t always something I’d take active participation in. Ever been the only geek in a group full of fashionistas and Gossip Girl fans? You’d be quiet too.

Another example, say you’re a charismatic who’s more on the evangelical side when it comes to any conversation. What if, by some weird case of divine intervention, you end up stuck in the same space as me and a group of more like-minded geeks? Do you think all that talk of theology, social issues, or even political activism is going to fit in a conversation about what’s coming out on Crunchyroll this winter, tactics for a planned dungeon raid, or just chock full of TVTropes terminology? I’d rather you didn’t try.

Look folks, you can talk about getting outside your comfort zone and expanding your social circles but Reality likes to nip that ideal in the bud too. There is only much ‘bonding’ you can do with folks you do not have enough in common with. If it just so happens that your Rectangle connects you better than your offline circumstances, then it wins. No contest. No complaining.

 

[Seeker1961]

We don’t fire them for talking about work…we fire them because they can’t stop Facebooking or Twittering or texting friends when we expect them to be working.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We don’t fire them for talking about work…we fire them because they can’t stop Facebooking or Twittering or texting friends when we expect them to be working.

Oh yeah. I understand that perfectly.
I feel kinda guilty though that some in my department are allowed social media access for marketing purposes. I heard some other departments in another branch are just steaming mad about it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just don’t see how medium has a direct impact on priority. If a more important work conversation is happening on my FB (and it has) then no amount of ‘live interaction’ is winning against the rectangle.

Oh there can be plenty of cases in a non-professional setting. If we’re talking social interaction, I’ll take the conversations I get here online than the ones I’ve had to tolerate when interacting with my brother’s peers.

Did your parents teach you manners? That’s not a snide remark; it’s a serious question. If your generation believes that there’s some kind of social justification in preferring an interfering electronic conversation (while talking face to face) based on subjective evaluation of the comparative quality of the two conversations, then either there was insufficient guidance about basic, universal manners, or you are proving the point of many of us here: Electronics rule.

Who are you to decide what is “more important?” When your boss or a colleague is speaking to you, at work, about work, and you choose simultaneously to “multi-task” (which actually is impossible; what is happening is interference), then what is less important is being prioritized. Even the boring work conversation is more important, objectively, than something more scintillating online. Our colleagues and our bosses deserve our respect and our priority when we’re at work, even when we dislike them, consider them incompetent, etc.

When we’re socializing, ditto. How rude to glance down at a text conversation when someone is speaking to you (/me). If you find them boring, the appropriate thing to do is to depart gracefully and find another conversation, or, if one is in love with one’s devices, hang out in a corner with those, and don’t pretend to be interacting.

I don’t pretend to know what your behavior is and to be commenting on that. I’m commenting on your apparent rationale for preferring some kinds of conversations based on how interesting one or another is.

This is really wrong.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Did your parents teach you manners? That’s not a snide remark; it’s a serious question. If your generation believes that there’s some kind of social justification in preferring an interfering electronic conversation (while talking face to face) based on subjective evaluation of the comparative quality of the two conversations, then either there was insufficient guidance about basic, universal manners, or you are proving the point of many of us here: Electronics rule.

Interfering? That’s your assumption. Not mine. Again, I can’t see people should bemoan kids preferring interaction with their gadgets when the people around them aren’t much for conversation? You want rude? How about trying to join in a conversation you absolutely have no clue as to join in? I find it ruder to encourage people to talk about things that are just hopelessly not within their own interests. Wake up to reality, you can’t have something in common with everybody.

Our colleagues and our bosses deserve our respect and our priority when we’re at work, even when we dislike them, consider them incompetent, etc.

Nobody said that and that does not mean an electronic conversation can’t happen to trump a real one. Don’t think your boss can’t call you for an emergency via FB.

When we’re socializing, ditto. How rude to glance down at a text conversation when someone is speaking to you (/me). If you find them boring, the appropriate thing to do is to depart gracefully and find another conversation, or, if one is in love with one’s devices, hang out in a corner with those, and don’t pretend to be interacting.

I see more pretensions on the part of people who think a live conversation makes for enough substance just for the sake of bashing tech. Heck, at least tech gives you the option to screen out threads and comments to ignore. In real life, it’s harder given that there are times when you are stuck in the room with someone you can’t really have much of a conversation with.

I don’t pretend to know what your behavior is and to be commenting on that. I’m commenting on your apparent rationale for preferring some kinds of conversations based on how interesting one or another is.

This is really wrong.

And what’s so wrong about that? Is it my fault that I have nothing worth discussing with you? Why do you insist that people talk about things they clearly have not interest in? That has more in common with pushy evangelism than social interaction. Don’t forget, if you want people to have a conversation with you, you gotta bring something to the table. It’s not the other way around (unless you want to turn a conversation into an automatic tutorial about the subject).

None of this course takes away the fact that it doesn’t matter which medium is used.

 

[Tigg]

The day will never come when I deliberately give my phone more attention than the living, breathing person in front of me. It’s telling that body that they aren’t all that important; that whatever they have to say is low on my list of priorities - it’s telling them this conversation is not significant to me. We were taught as children that if a group of adults were in the room speaking, we did not interrupt, except if it was important, and then we said, “We’re sorry to interrupt, but”…and waited until we were told is was okay to speak. Simple polite manners, giving deference and respect where it belongs, to a person, not a machine.

 

[JRKH]

Interfering? That’s your assumption. Not mine. Again, I can’t see people should bemoan kids preferring interaction with their gadgets when the people around them aren’t much for conversation?

I agree that in a specific situation, where conversation is not possible, turning to a gadget can be acceptable. But not as a “first choice” - and one has to remember that in turning to the “gadgets” too often, one cuts off even the possibility of conversation in many cases.

You want rude? How about trying to join in a conversation you absolutely have no clue as to join in? I find it ruder to encourage people to talk about things that are just hopelessly not within their own interests. Wake up to reality, you can’t have something in common with everybody.

How about choosing to listen to conversations on subjects outside of your own sphere of interest? Perhaps you cannot “join in” in any meaningful way, but it just might widen you horizons, help you later, and make you a more well rounded person. In this case, turning to “gadgets” can actually narrow rather than expand your mind.

Just a thought…

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Simple polite manners, giving deference and respect where it belongs, to a person, not a machine.

So I’m a machine now if I talk to someone using anything that uses electricity?

 

[jmcrae]

the Famous quote from Karl Marx is that, “religion is the opium (or opiate) of the masses”…

With the decline of religious influence in secular society - is the quote still valid???
If not, what is the “opiate of the masses”…

Peace
James

Video games, or possibly FaceBook - whatever provides an escape from the endless drudgery of work and school.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I agree that in a specific situation, where conversation is not possible, turning to a gadget can be acceptable. But not as a “first choice” - and one has to remember that in turning to the “gadgets” too often, one cuts off even the possibility of conversation in many cases.

You know it’s funny that someone here lectures me about parents teaching manners when it’s also a parental teaching to not talk to strangers. The funny thing about gadgets is that they actually allow that with minimal dangers. Real interactions though? Good luck not embarrassing yourself

Again, gadgets are not at fault. It’s people who are at fault. If you have a subject of discussion that would be far more interesting to what is currently on a person’s mind. Then go ahead, politely ask for their attention. However, it’s Basic Speaking 101 to bear the responsibility of making sure the other person understands the importance. Only then can you freely call someone rude as you please.

How about choosing to listen to conversations on subjects outside of your own sphere of interest? Perhaps you cannot “join in” in any meaningful way, but it just might widen you horizons, help you later, and make you a more well rounded person. In this case, turning to “gadgets” can actually narrow rather than expand your mind.

Yet Google allows us to search a new subject every day while the likes of FB and online forum let’s us discuss it further. What’s the difference? See, like everyone else, you’re trying to make a false dichotomy between gadgets or no gadgets when it doesn’t even matter.

By the way, you know not that listening in to a conversation is not always welcomed right? Finally, what crime against humanity do I commit if I don’t care as to what is being discussed? Would you, as a religious person, take part in a conversation if you’re stuck in an elevator full of God of War fans?

 

[Elizabeth502]

And what’s so wrong about that? Is it my fault that I have nothing worth discussing with you? Why do you insist that people talk about things they clearly have not interest in?

What in the world are you talking about? This is so random and off-topic. I’m talking about your earlier statements that implied (or said?) that you have no obligation to pay attention to someone who’s talking to you, when you have a legitimate relationship with that person, such as work, and the subject is work.

I wasn’t talking about “me.” Why do you keep using the second person singular? I’m not trying to “force” “you” to talk to “me.” I’m telling you that when a person has a legitimate interest in having a conversation with you, based on your relationship with that person, you, I, anyone, is rude to prefer an electronic device, based on some need to “prove” some standard of high interest so that you (or anyone!) will deign to put down the elctronic advice, look them in the eye, and listen.

I’m not talking, naturally, about optional conversations. We’re not socially obliged, let alone morally obliged, to indulge strangers in conversation – whether the topic is or is not interesting to us. We can find a way to deflect their attempts, we can walk away if we can do so without giving offense, etc.

When we’re at work, and the subject is work, we do the same. We’re not required to indulge someone else’s empty talk, gossip, and time-wasting. We can ask them politely to get to the point. We can indicate, if it’s gossip or personal stuff, that we’re not interested and we have work to do. The solution is not to pull out our electronic device. That’s merely answering rudeness or boredom with more rudness and boredom.

If the subject is material to work, we have an obligation not to deliberately bring another conversation into the twosome (or group conversation) with an electronic device, unless we have permission for that.

That has more in common with pushy evangelism than social interaction.

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, but I am talking about manners, and nothing else. No one with manners requires others to live up to individual expectations of exciting subject matter in order to give them merely the time of day. That’s absurd, socially and logically.

Don’t forget, if you want people to have a conversation with you, you gotta bring something to the table. It’s not the other way around (unless you want to turn a conversation into an automatic tutorial about the subject).

Again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t know me. How would you know whether I do or do not “want people to have a conversation with me?” I expect people, and I would expect you, if we had a relationship of any category, to acknowledge my existence with manners. I would expect that I would treat you respectfully if we were having a conversation – not pulling out my phone if I suddenly found you “boring.” If I felt the conversation were dragging out, I would indicate that; I would not feel entitled to be rude to you by turning on a phone, a TV, a laptop (and ignoring you while doing so).

And all courteous people understand this.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What in the world are you talking about? This is so random and off-topic. I’m talking about your earlier statements that implied (or said?) that you have no obligation to pay attention to someone who’s talking to you, when you have a legitimate relationship with that person, such as work, and the subject is work.

Okay, now you have a completely confused understanding of my post. I specifically said that even in a non-professional setting, neither gadgets or real conversations have any merit by virtue of their medium.

And FYI, if you just replace ‘interest’ with ‘priority’ you get the same thing with work. If a conversation on the phone has more importance than idle chit-chat with the pastor, then obviously you have to admit the phone takes precedence.

If I felt the conversation were dragging out, I would indicate that; I would not feel entitled to be rude to you by turning on a phone, a TV, a laptop (and ignoring you while doing so).

And all courteous people understand this.

Really? Because from my own personal experience, blatantly announcing that a conversation is dragging out is not polite either. Heck I would find it both obnoxious AND embarrassing if you were to come to me, try to get me to talk about something, and then just make it a waste of time by saying you’ve got nothing else to talk about. That’s why you need to make it out clearly beforehand and don’t get people’s hopes up.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, now you have a completely confused understanding of my post. I specifically said that even in a non-professional setting, neither gadgets or real conversations have any merit by virtue of their medium.

And FYI, if you just replace ‘interest’ with ‘priority’ you get the same thing with work. If a conversation on the phone has more importance than idle chit-chat with the pastor, then obviously you have to admit the phone takes precedence.

But you would say something like, “Pardon me, I am expecting this call,” before turning your back on your pastor and answering your phone, though - right?

You wouldn’t constantly glance at your phone while he was talking to you - that would be rude. But I have noticed that some kids do that when they’re talking to me. I usually just say to them, “It seems like you’ve got something interesting on your phone; tell me about it.”
.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But you would say something like, “Pardon me, I am expecting this call,” before turning your back on your pastor and answering your phone, though - right?

Of course but we can also turn this around. Supposed said pastor wants to talk to me about charity work and I’m not exactly in the mood to talk anything NPO. Instead, he approaches me while I’m say, playing my PSP or text-chatting with a fellow gamer. Alas, despite all attempts, I am just not in the mood.

What I see here is the pastor leaving with his head hung and railing against tech when it’s supposed to be his job to not drag a conversation when he knows his correspondent is just not interested.

 

[JRKH]

Of course but we can also turn this around. Supposed said pastor wants to talk to me about charity work and I’m not exactly in the mood to talk anything NPO. Instead, he approaches me while I’m say, playing my PSP or text-chatting with a fellow gamer. Alas, despite all attempts, I am just not in the mood.

What is “NPO”?

So - are you saying that if the pastor sees you involved with your device he should not approach you at all?
How is he to know that you are “not in the mood” if he does not ask and you do not tell him?
Surely you can put your game on hold, or tell your chat buddy that you’ll be back in a few minutes and give your pastor, God’s shepherd to you, a few minutes of your time.

Maybe I’m missing something here…but the above scenario seems to illustrate a rather poor spiritual attitude if you are unwilling to but a game or gaming conversation on hold for a few minutes so that you can talk to the man who is the shepherd God has placed over you for the good of your soul.
What does such a scenario say about the importance placed on game, vs the importance placed on God?

What I see here is the pastor leaving with his head hung and railing against tech when it’s supposed to be his job to not drag a conversation when he knows his correspondent is just not interested.

I see the pastor leaving in sorrow, that the person he hoped to speak to about the work of God could not be bothered to interrupt a worldly conversation long enough to even briefly discuss it or set up a convenient time to go into the matter further.

I think the pastor would be rightly concerned about the technology - the person’s abuse of the technology - because by the person’s actions they are demonstrating that something - in this case gaming - has replaced God as their first love…

For what it’s worth LW…I agree that we should not blame the technology itself -
But abuse of that technology is rampant - and as your scenario above illustrates, it can be, not only culturally rude, but spiritually dangerous.

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What is “NPO”?

Non-profit org.

So - are you saying that if the pastor sees you involved with your device he should not approach you at all?

No, he should realize that he is competing for my interest and if he loses, it’s his fault and needs to take it like a man instead of bashing tech.

How is he to know that you are “not in the mood” if he does not ask and you do not tell him?

I would think preoccupation with a device would be enough indication. Then again, according to this that is something to cry about and Mr. Pastor has every right to disrupt my chat/game/posting/browsing because he’s a ‘real person’.

Surely you can put your game on hold, or tell your chat buddy that you’ll be back in a few minutes and give your pastor, God’s shepherd to you, a few minutes of your time.

Few minutes is not the issue. It’s being able to hold a conversation after starting one. If you’re losing that battle, realize that and bow out gracefully. Don’t go whining as if technology is the problem.

Maybe I’m missing something here…but the above scenario seems to illustrate a rather poor spiritual attitude if you are unwilling to but a game or gaming conversation on hold for a few minutes so that you can talk to the man who is the shepherd God has placed over you for the good of your soul.

Yes you are missing something. It’s the fact that not even God thinks the whole world revolves around constant expressions and discussions of religion. Look, it doesn’t matter if you are working for the local children’s hospital or elder’s home. It is your responsibility to approach someone at the right time and hold that conversation. People in my company follows THIS as courtesy as well and everyone here knows they do better at their jobs when they do. If you fail at that, the least you can do is be mature enough to realize what you said wrong. You don’t go on a technophobic rant.

I see the pastor leaving in sorrow, that the person he hoped to speak to about the work of God could not be bothered to interrupt a worldly conversation long enough to even briefly discuss it or set up a convenient time to go into the matter further.

The one at fault is the pastor. Whether you’re a speaker, marketer, pastor, politician, or salesman, timing is YOUR responsibility. Getting people interested along with good timing is YOUR responsibility. If you fail at either, it’s YOUR mistake. Period.

I think the pastor would be rightly concerned about the technology - the person’s abuse of the technology - because by the person’s actions they are demonstrating that something - in this case gaming - has replaced God as their first love…

You do know Jesus was a party-goer right? See, even He knew there was a time and place for such talk. It’s not about putting one thing over the other. It’s about realizing that if everything in the world centered around one thing too long (whether it’s gaming, chatting, religion, philosophy, politics), it’s an addictive mess. And yes, you CAN be just as addicted to religion and anything tied to it. It CAN be a bad thing. Marx wasn’t completely wrong you know.

For what it’s worth LW…I agree that we should not blame the technology itself -
But abuse of that technology is rampant - and as your scenario above illustrates, it can be, not only culturally rude, but spiritually dangerous.

What? Because the religion and the spirituality camp have socially inept communicators? Way to demonstrate my point.