My experience is that people who care about “internet spelling” are uni-lingual. That is to say, they only know one language and compensate for this linguistic shortcoming by overreacting to the “travesty” that is crappy writing. How about instead: The world doesn’t speak your language, consider yourself lucky that people are trying.
C-2 B-1 step ahead D-1 way to D0 17 15 through 53 C2 37 C0 DE
…I’ve been awake too long :-S
OFF
See, Mary here has even come up with some sort of Renoise shorthand notation 
… that’s gotta be progress 
“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”
– George Orwell
Well, I wouldn’t say I “care”, but I do have opinions about it and they are negative mostly… so that disproves your little theory right there
LOL
Intressting quote.
I don’t agree that people who can’t write necessarily cannot think well.
There are people with dyslexia that certainly are very smart.
And if you are not smart you will probably not increase your IQ very much simply by learning to spell correct.
And what does he mean with write well? Does he mean spell correct?
Or could he mean write and formulate intressting thoughs which are correct spelled?
I think that spelling correct is the least important as long as you make yourself understod and are succeful at communicating. However some words get a different meaning when spelled wrong, which means you could get missunderstod which could be bad for your or another persons health
Sometimes it could acctually be smarter to use simplified language and optimized words.
When you have a limited amount of space you can fit more content by using optimized words it will also save you time and if you know that the person you write too will understand you.
Albert Einstein had dyslexia
And now, he’s dead.
FACT!
George orwell wrote books, not chats.
I should point out that knowing how to properly construct a sentence using standard grammatical structure, and choosing to do so are two entirely separate things. In fact, English grammar is nothing more than a commonly used syntax for language… the fact is there are more conventions for writing than you can possibly imagine… we, as an English speaking culture, just use the one that’s been generally agreed upon by those who speak our language… and arguably more so by those who control our language.
The reality of the matter is, our language has been constantly changing for millennia, and it will continue to do so as time goes on. Those from the 17th century would quite possibly look at our current use of the English language (at a scholarly level, not an urban level) and consider it to be unimaginably degraded from their concept of proper grammar. Change in this respect is neither bad nor good.
I’ve thought a bit more on Lunat’s comment that my example of someone born deaf being “tainted with fallacy”, and in fact, my argument still stands, considering that it is possible for someone to be born deaf. You attacked the scenario on the basis that “very few of them are born deaf” (your words) … this means you realize that some people are born deaf. (it has a name btw: “Congenital Deafness”)… That being the case, my question still stands: “what should we say of those people who are born deaf? Are they by nature incapable of complex thought? Furthermore, are they incapable of communicating, or expressing complex ideas through their nonverbal communications? I think not.” … your actual response to this seems to be when you mention that it’s hard to teach them… well of course it is. They’re deaf. But “hard to teach” and “just plan stupid” are NOT the same thing.
I think you meant to say “oops, there goes my theory indeed” 
But yes, Orwell wrote books (also essays), not chats. And I don’t think that’s just because there was no chatting back then, but because there is just no way to put anything remotely interesting into super small bits. Someone who wrote only books can usually write a postcard - someone who only wrote postcards can usually not write a book.
I don’t know what Orwell means, and I’m a bit wary of the quote myself… but: unless you can paint very well (or make animations, music, mime, etc.), words are the only thing anybody else will ever “see” of your thinking. So it may not be fair, but especially in the context of society, politics and power, words matter a lot, so for all practical purposes, if you cannot express your thoughts in words they just don’t exist, they have no impact.
Also: I know that even writing on forums, arguing with strangers over petty stuff, or random blog posts I have long since deleted, while being a waste of time, also helped me a lot in becoming more clear in thoughts as well as speech, in regards to philosophy and politics (note: “more clear”, not “clear” ), because putting your thoughts in writing kinda forces them to come to the light, inconsistencies you habitually skip over when thinking may become glaringly obvious etc. Yes, that requires actually reflecting, sometimes even re-phrasing things in your head that you cannot change anymore, because you already sent the letter or whatever, just because you care about words and their meanings, and I don’t see that happening much, nowhere near enough.
Oh yeah, we live in a faster world blah-di-blah. Maybe. Or maybe we’re just in the transition to super fascism 2000, with a lots of drooling little cogs, but fortunately only until robotics and nanotech really take off. That could be viewed as natural evolution, it could also been seen as being prodded and shoved all along the way. Forming a “superbody” with individuals being the cells is inevitable anyway, you don’t need to DO anything for that to happen. What is happening here is not evolution IMHO, it’s some sort of Frankenstein Monster with little Frankensteins riding on it. That the monster is convincing itself that it came to be naturally just shows what a fucking sinister genius that Frankenstein is. But that Frankenstein seems to believe that too, that is what really creeps me out.
Uhm, so much for getting more clear in regards to philosophy and politics… I’m rambling, whoopsie. But still, “that’s just how it is, stuff changes”, isn’t as high and mighty an argument as some make it out to be. Buddhism is all about everything being in flux, yet it’s also about being skillful and considerate, and that’s 1000s of years old. We’re, uhhhh, not quite up to that level currently, we’re more like kids voluntarily choking in a candy factory, and we assume there is only us, but that’s pure BS. Plenty of people are not being dragged down by it, and I hope they will manage to split off some day, because this branch surely isn’t going anywhere noteworthy, so take off zig for great justice.
Well, it can communicate a lot of things. For example, that you spell some words wrong, and when you see them spelled correctly, you don’t notice and update your knowledge. Or that don’t bother to look stuff up about which you are unsure, which communicates you don’t pay much attention, that you will only improve yourself when forced to, because hey, “as long as everybody gets what I mean, there is no need for any ‘extra’ effort”. It can also communicate that you’re in a hurry or have dyslexia, granted, or maybe just that you don’t really think it important enough to proof-read it. It could be understood as you not caring about the young or other people learning the language.
There are many possible negative interpretations, a few neutral ones and no positive ones - expect maybe that you’re so busy and wonderful that you just don’t have time for trivialities as putting effort into your communication.
I think people who won’t read something because it’s not formatted to their liking and perfectly spelled are being silly, and I for one hope that the solution to all of our problems will be written by a dyslexic on a napkin exactly for that reason. But that doesn’t mean I have much sympathy for people not even trying to improve their use of language, or people pretending to defend weakness, when they really just defend lazyness.
Well, why would anyone then say that something like that is not “well written”? (I’m fully aware that the quote was kinda off-topic in the context of “shorthands”, I just thought it’s close enough anyway to be interesting, or maybe I’m just trying to hi-jack this haha)
But if you can’t write actual sentences ever, even if you have all the space and time in the world, you owe it to yourself to change that, if you can, SRSLY.
I look at technology such as the internet as more liberating than anything. It frees knowledge… and as knowledge is power, what it’s really doing is empowering the people. This truly scares the rich, as their money is becoming less and less a base of their power. No longer are people restricted from what should be common knowledge by walls like huge tuition fees and expensive book prices… these days, it’s easier for the common serf to seek out the truth than ever. For this reason, those in power will do whatever they can to try to convince you that the information you find on the internet using your own objective reasoning is false or subjective, because they have no other recourse to deal with what is truly an information anarchy. They’ve lost control of the ball and it’s in our court now.
What always blows me away is how much people will get focused on insignificant issues. But then, perhaps to those that have ulterior motives, or who are threatened by free thought, these issues of user defined mindshare and social change are quite significant. Generally, I agree with Buddhism, even though it’s a religion, which means it has metaphysical implications… and as such, I don’t practice it. It has much insight, yoda says.
Check, check, and double check. People who rely only on a reduced form of language are limiting themselves. In fact, those who embrace only one form of language are also limiting themselves, even if they use it flawlessly. I say, U SHUD RLY TRY 2 USE MORE DAN 1 KIDNA LANGUAGEZ SO U CANS HAVE TEH BETTAR UNDURSTANDINZ OF TEH WERLDZ DAN TEH SLEEPYCATZ DOZ… DAT WAY U NO HOW 2 EZPREZ URSLEF IN ALL DA DIFFRANT WAIZ. AFTAR ALL DAT IS HOW TEH CEILING CAT MADE ALL TEH KITTIEZ 2B.
This is my point: It’s more than possible to use chat-speak to portray complex ideas in a well written way. In fact, most of the people I see using it are doing just that, despite the fact that they get flamed for it constantly by people who have less than adequate grammar and spelling skills. But I guess it’s acceptable to flame people for such reasons, as the internet is a SERIOUS PLACE.
Of ALL authors, they drag Orwell into this discussion…
There are worse purists out there, who’d have your balls
for lolling your life away. And with good reason, lol.
loling my life away is better than spending all my time being paranoidily concerned about not loling.
Uh… yeah… not smoking is better than spending your life being paranoidily concerned about smoking.
lolling causes cancer? Damn… I’m gonna stop lolling right now.
Well, yeah. On the other hand: if the people who use the internet to learn freely cannot reach those who don’t - what’s the use? If they don’t use their gained knowledge to organize and defend themselves - what’s the use? You just need 10-20 million highly indoctrinated people, a few satellites and battle ships to be untouchable. I’m exaggerating, but not by much. I’m a nethead, I really am, but I’m skeptic about the overall effect of computerization. To me it could be salvation, or just the last piece of what begun with driving people from their land and into cities and wage slavery. It’s not the technology that is fascist, is how it’s used mostly.
And again, I’m really afraid that it might matter how many wonderful things enlightened humans do with this technology - it only takes a handful of brainwashed people to squish them. We’re far from having made that impossible. Actually I think that is happening, only slowly, like boiling a frog. In the least it’s still an arms race between life and death, it’s nowhere near over or decided.
I didn’t get that.
On the one hand you say people in power are threatened by the net, on the other hand you say it shouldn’t be taken too seriously - decide?
Are you implying some common knowledge about Orwell, or have you just forgot to finish your sentence?
I just think it’s sad and don’t waste my energy there. Actually I think it’s great: more pussy for me!
The OLPC project will help. And if you mean “reach” in the psychological manner, well, there’s a growing movement of informed netziens that are working to spread the ideals of objectivity and free learning. They’re systematically dismantling the status quo. It’s going to be wondrous.
I didn’t get that
Again, projects like OLPC are helping here… and I insist that as long as freedom of speech reigns supreme on the Internet, which certain parties will make sure it does, the knowledge of the world will continue to spread. Now, more than ever, we know of the effects of viral memetics, and how to combat their misuse. The truth is also a virus… a more powerful one than the PR industry could ever imagine. There’s no way the world’s powers can silence the entire planet.
As soon as a few people start to get squished, there will be rebellion. After all, you can’t stop us all, we’re all alike.
It was pretty non sequitur. “User defined mindshare” is a bastardization of the PR term “mindshare”, used to describe how or how often you think of a product. If mindshare is user defined, the “consumer” decides what to think about instead of listening to what the media tries to implant into our mindshare. They (hopefully) cease to be controlled by the machine. It was basically implying that those who have issues with free thought and social change most likely have some sort of motive behind their arguments. Some teachers for instance, often fight against free thought because they don’t want their credibility to be threatened by the active mind of a younger person. This is why many university professors don’t want laptops in classrooms… internet access allows students to fabricate complex arguments on the spot, thereby taking the professor down from their esteemed pedestal of “perfect objectivity” and putting them closer to the level of a regular human being. As most professors make their money from research, having credibility attacked in such a manner can be damaging to one’s career. This is just one example.
The internet is full of subjectivity, sarcasm, and satire, and therefore, can’t be taken completely seriously… the arguments that occur here are between complete strangers, and again, should not be taken completely to heart. I like take the saying “take what you like and leave the rest” and turn it on its side: “Take what works to enrich your life and others’ lives for the better and leave the rest” because in reality, we often like what’s not necessarily good for us… and as I consider qualities like truth to be ultimately enriching, it applies to all areas of my life. The implications of the social effect of the Internet however, are very important. It has the power to take us into the age of universal knowledge, and true freedom of thought… that’s big shit.
I also believe that life is too important to be taken seriously (at least 100% seriously) … that is, there’s no reason to stress over little shit. The big issues are obviously big issues for a reason… but sometimes, for your personal survival and sanity, you need to see the inherent humour in the gravity of the human condition. We’re only on this planet for so long, so while we’re trying to make positive change, we should also be learning to live life as joyously as possible.
This reminds me of when Masamune Shirow (the manga artist who came up with Ghost In the Shell) has one of his inspired moments. He really believes in artificial intelligence, external memory and that sort of thing, as an evolutionary step in human history.
Sometimes I wonder what the internet will actually become in the long run.
Right on.
I’m too anal to bother with misspelling…
… and after this thread I really fancy a cup of tea, for some odd reason…
Summer turns me into an asshole 