Fun Stuff > CHATTER
The Quadrennial Global Round-Ball Extravaganza
David_Dovey:
I'm not entirely sure that the writer is saying that there were less issues back in the day, more that the average person was exposed to less, and those that they were exposed to were of more immediate impact.
At least, that's how I read it. It is entirely possible that the writer did actually think less bad/scary/controversial stuff was happening a few decades ago and that it has exponentially increased in the past ten years for reasons unseen. Either way you are right in pointing out that the article is a load of old tosh. I'm just being pedantic (what's new).
scarred:
--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 15 Jun 2010, 05:56 ---I'm not entirely sure that the writer is saying that there were less issues back in the day, more that the average person was exposed to less, and those that they were exposed to were of more immediate impact.
--- End quote ---
No that's exactly what the article was saying.
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 15 Jun 2010, 05:52 ---The problem isn't the over-saturation of news in the digital age, it's that if something might work it's also going to be scary and very possibly illegal.
--- End quote ---
Yeah well excuse us if we aren't trying to line up for jail
a pack of wolves:
Hey, the idea of a night in the cells scares me witless, never mind actually serving time. But you can't change anything without an element of personal risk. The problem with that article is that it isn't asking "what can we do" it's asking "what can we do that will have no negative repercussions on my life whatsoever"? Civil rights activists literally did line up for jail, they knew the jails couldn't hold them all and that it cost a fantastic amount to imprison so many, but they wouldn't have got anywhere if they weren't willing to put themselves on the line like they did.
--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 15 Jun 2010, 05:56 ---I'm not entirely sure that the writer is saying that there were less issues back in the day, more that the average person was exposed to less, and those that they were exposed to were of more immediate impact.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure the average person was exposed to less. Sure, given infinite time the internet would allow for more issues to come to someone's attention, but I doubt most people have the time to consume more news than people did when they just had newspapers, radio and television.
Anyway, back to the football. FUCK YES NEW ZEALAND! Sure Slovakia weren't playing at full potential but NZ worked hard, played well as a team, didn't give up when they went behind and totally deserved their equaliser. And what a time to do it, just in the dying seconds of the game!
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 15 Jun 2010, 07:39 ---I'm not sure the average person was exposed to less.
--- End quote ---
Yes, we were. Even though there were more papers and we listened to the radio, the pace of reporting was slower even in times of crisis; there was much less emphasis on foreign or world-wide stories as well. Doesn't mean we couldn't get worried - about nukes, for instance (think Cuba, or the CND's glory days) - but there wasn't the ubiquity of concern that is prevalent these days.
valley_parade:
So um how terrible were Portugal?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version