?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 August 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Archbishop "slams social networking"  
I'm sure you all read this one, or a headline like it:-

Aka "Gaah! Where's the link?"


To summarise his points:-

- He thinks that people are losing out on real life face to face relationships;

- he asserts that people are losing the basic social skills such as being able to read a person's emotions and body language;

- he maintains that real relationships should take paramount importance over cheap f'lists.

I imagine the Archbishop has a pretty good idea of what he would like to supplant social networking: The Church. If so, he'd be so bloody predictable to say so.

I can't quite agree with the Archbishop, however. For some, social networking sites are the only places where they do have a social life. I could not imagine someone in the 1970s having a happy life if, in trying to come out as gay in some backwoods village, they discovered that they really were The Only Gay In The Village. Now the same thing happens with Star Trek fans, kids who love mathematics and science, and people who just want to meet people that have interests in other than bloody Pringles crisps or "that bird off the X Factor."

I suspect that the Archbishop has to do some more asking around before he can make such judgments on the likes of Facebook, LJ and so on.

Nevertheless, he makes a valid point about the footballers being mercenaries. They're more like whores, in my book.
 
 
Current Location: home
Current Mood: awake
Current Music: nowt
 
 
 
the adventures of Christinecdaae on August 5th, 2009 10:13 pm (UTC)
I wish the media would stop reporting the opinions of these archbishops as if they actually matter.

As I bullied and deeply depressed teenager, I had about three RL friends, and lots and lots of penfriends, who served pretty much the same purpose that my LJ flist serves now: people who actually understand me, mutual friendship and support that's just as real as RL friendships.

So I entirely agree with your comment regarding wanting to meet people who have interests other than reality shows!

It's also a huge blessing for people with disabilities (whether physical or mental), who are frequently isolated IRL.
Gary: doctor 04 - with donnaalienatedduck on August 6th, 2009 12:23 am (UTC)
Hey, at least it's better than sitting in front of the telly.
anghara13anghara13 on August 6th, 2009 06:55 am (UTC)
To an extent I agree with the posters above me, that the online friends we make are a support network, more in tune with us, and better yet, available whenever we log on, but...

Dammit I'm still lonely, I still crave the option to have a few drinks, go dancing, or to the movies, with real people.

But my Flist is pretty much almost entirely based on people who are a minimum of three hours drive away, or a nine and a half hour flight with hanging around in an airport half way around the world away.

But as a single parent with no real back up here in the UK, and he's special needs too, meaning I can't get regular babysitters without it costing me the earth, I just don't get to go out.

So I do see both sides of the argument, but, when it all goes wrong and you need someone here with a box of chocs, a chick flick and a bottle of wine (I can provide the tissues), that internet Flist can be less than helpful. We do need to have some RL friends, and if we're a little pickier about them now than when we were younger? That's probably wise. We should be that way online as well as in real life.

PS: I too can not stand reality TV, am I seeing a trend here?
fiat_knoxfiat_knox on August 6th, 2009 07:09 am (UTC)
Yup. The TV companies put out what they think we need, balanced against the desire to be safe in some way.

They don't have a clue what we need. So all that remains is the safety. Which results in programming with all the excitement of a sheet of cardboard.
Aarona_pawson on August 6th, 2009 08:26 am (UTC)
No they don't. The TV companies put out programmes which:

a) bring in the most advertising revenue
b) cost the least to make
c) they are required to make as per their broadcasting licence
fiat_knoxfiat_knox on August 6th, 2009 08:43 am (UTC)
They'd bring in more advertising revenue if they made shows that bring in more viewers.

If you make programmes that cater to the safe audience, you will soon bore everybody else and drive away the customers. Bubble gum only lasts for so long before it loses its flavour, and reality TV has long passed that time. Stick in on your bedpost and find something else, I say.
hybridartifactshybridartifacts on August 6th, 2009 07:18 am (UTC)
I can't help feeling he has not quite grasped how social networking often works.
Most of the young people I know using it actually see many of their online friends on a regular basis irl anyway. Most of the older ones I know (myself included) use it as a means of keeping in touch with friends who live some distance away to maintain their friendships and keep in touch. In those later cases it can often facilitate meeting up irl, even if only infrequently.

The social trend that is problematic is that as we get older it is now very likely that people we know will move away while it becomes increasingly difficult to make new friendships. Also stress and the demands of trying to earn a living means we have less time for socialising, and for others the demands of things like having a role as a carer increasingly restrict their activity as well.

Perhaps social networking is a response by many teens to gain a sense of popularity and affirmation, while for many adults it is a last ditch attempt to maintain friendships that are being broken by larger social changes around the way we live and work. I find it interesting that some recent studies of use of things like facebook suggest that teens are now starting to use it less, while the older age groups are starting to take it up more.