Anyone can do it. Doesn't take any equipment. People will think you're crazy, but so what? During a two hour rush hour period, you can plant 5000 smiles into 5000 lives. It can really make a difference, if you live in a hostile, "mean streets" kind of city. A few people doing this can change the atmosphere of a whole city. You could even organize, you know, form a "Smile Operations Club" that gets out there together and then goes to dinner together afterward. Etc.
Some things go viral online but standing by a highway make things viral offline, possibly at a deeper level for sure. Some people can reach more offline that way than they could online & some people may record you too & put it online later on too to make it a two in one deal. In some cases, some people are not really able to influence as many people online as they potentially speaking, ten times over or more, offline. It would surprise a lot of people if only they gave it a try.
Social media is addictive and harmful, although it has some benefits. "Relationships" online are not real relationships; they are more like calls into a talk radio show.
My relationship is not real? Does that mean I am not real or are you not real or are we both not real or does it lack that real life depth? Reminds me of that time in the Matrix where the boy asked if you can bend the spoon or the space and time or something. Yeah, Facebook was designed to make people depressed and much worse too.
There is exciting potential, but also great dangers, in experiencing connection with other individuals in this way. Overall, I think that the positive potential outweighs the negative danger. I would say something similar about relationships in crowded, hostile, impersonal urban environments, except that such environments are, on balance, not fit for human habitation (the danger outweighs the benefits).
My standard by which I measure venues is the small town in which everyone knows each other and most people see each other at church every Sunday morning. Such venues are by no means utopia; there can be feuds and drama and conflict and aggression, as well as division by politics, race, and religion. But such venues are characterized by full disclosure and accountability.
In contrast, here on STEEM, accounts are anonymous, gender and age are concealed or can be falsified, there is no accountability, and there is no commitment to either remain or maintain the viability of the venue.
Agreed, children dive into this too much, too early, like I try my best to handle the Internet now at the age of 33. Started using Internet more so when I was about 13 but only about an hour a week or an hour a day until I was maybe 18 or something. My time on the Internet gradually went up over the years but it can mess people up, especially younger people.
I know the differences between online and offline worlds, and I value offline things and people over online potentials and stuff. Yeah, like you said, less accountability, more risks, more variables, are on the Internet. Yeah, there are benefits for the Internet but it can and does destroy people like guns. They are tools. A gun is a tool. A knife is a tool. Internet is also a dangerous tool that can be used for good and for bad. I remember my life before Internet. You probably can too. And smaller towns are generally better in so many ways like you said.
If I were to have kids someday, and I am single now, but sure hope my hypothetical wife doesn't spoil my kids with like too much Internet at too young of an age. Because the Internet is a tool and not a game. Thanks for writing.
My marriage lasted 17 years. We had two children. We married too young. I had not yet formed as a man, and had not yet established myself "in the world". The Bible says, and it's true, that all should marry. You cannot become fully a man without a wife who, at your side, becomes fully a woman.
My views regarding the details are conservative (lifelong commitment, no birth control, no abortion, no cheating, the woman "loves, honors, obeys", the man "cherishes and protects", and perhaps most importantly, the woman is not in any sense a "partner" and does NOT help out with providing for the family.
What you and your future wife do, of course, will depend upon the ideas that you and she were raised with and how much the two of you have bought into the cultural message, which I view as propoganda designed to serve the interests of special interests rather than the interests of the couple and their children.
Anyone can do it. Doesn't take any equipment. People will think you're crazy, but so what? During a two hour rush hour period, you can plant 5000 smiles into 5000 lives. It can really make a difference, if you live in a hostile, "mean streets" kind of city. A few people doing this can change the atmosphere of a whole city. You could even organize, you know, form a "Smile Operations Club" that gets out there together and then goes to dinner together afterward. Etc.
Some things go viral online but standing by a highway make things viral offline, possibly at a deeper level for sure. Some people can reach more offline that way than they could online & some people may record you too & put it online later on too to make it a two in one deal. In some cases, some people are not really able to influence as many people online as they potentially speaking, ten times over or more, offline. It would surprise a lot of people if only they gave it a try.
Social media is addictive and harmful, although it has some benefits. "Relationships" online are not real relationships; they are more like calls into a talk radio show.
My relationship is not real? Does that mean I am not real or are you not real or are we both not real or does it lack that real life depth? Reminds me of that time in the Matrix where the boy asked if you can bend the spoon or the space and time or something. Yeah, Facebook was designed to make people depressed and much worse too.
There is exciting potential, but also great dangers, in experiencing connection with other individuals in this way. Overall, I think that the positive potential outweighs the negative danger. I would say something similar about relationships in crowded, hostile, impersonal urban environments, except that such environments are, on balance, not fit for human habitation (the danger outweighs the benefits).
My standard by which I measure venues is the small town in which everyone knows each other and most people see each other at church every Sunday morning. Such venues are by no means utopia; there can be feuds and drama and conflict and aggression, as well as division by politics, race, and religion. But such venues are characterized by full disclosure and accountability.
In contrast, here on STEEM, accounts are anonymous, gender and age are concealed or can be falsified, there is no accountability, and there is no commitment to either remain or maintain the viability of the venue.
Agreed, children dive into this too much, too early, like I try my best to handle the Internet now at the age of 33. Started using Internet more so when I was about 13 but only about an hour a week or an hour a day until I was maybe 18 or something. My time on the Internet gradually went up over the years but it can mess people up, especially younger people.
I know the differences between online and offline worlds, and I value offline things and people over online potentials and stuff. Yeah, like you said, less accountability, more risks, more variables, are on the Internet. Yeah, there are benefits for the Internet but it can and does destroy people like guns. They are tools. A gun is a tool. A knife is a tool. Internet is also a dangerous tool that can be used for good and for bad. I remember my life before Internet. You probably can too. And smaller towns are generally better in so many ways like you said.
If I were to have kids someday, and I am single now, but sure hope my hypothetical wife doesn't spoil my kids with like too much Internet at too young of an age. Because the Internet is a tool and not a game. Thanks for writing.
My marriage lasted 17 years. We had two children. We married too young. I had not yet formed as a man, and had not yet established myself "in the world". The Bible says, and it's true, that all should marry. You cannot become fully a man without a wife who, at your side, becomes fully a woman.
My views regarding the details are conservative (lifelong commitment, no birth control, no abortion, no cheating, the woman "loves, honors, obeys", the man "cherishes and protects", and perhaps most importantly, the woman is not in any sense a "partner" and does NOT help out with providing for the family.
What you and your future wife do, of course, will depend upon the ideas that you and she were raised with and how much the two of you have bought into the cultural message, which I view as propoganda designed to serve the interests of special interests rather than the interests of the couple and their children.
Beth, yes, great ideas make us smile & they change us forevermore.