The former. It's funny how you bring up all those people, because the points they made demonstrated an understanding of what I was saying. They didn't even have to agree with me to demonstrate their comprehension of the main point of my original post. Agent O: "I see what you're saying Mark. The thought has crossed my mind as well." & "I just wish more people would realize the negative impacts of technology and re-evaluate their lifestyle." Raymond: "Is technology taking us down a dark path? I can't say for sure. But I do know we need to expect some growing pains. It may take a few years (decades even) for people to strike a healthy balance between everyday human contact and complete technological immersion." Dean: "It's just something I've came to expect from the internet and I take it with a pinch of salt, fortunately I still don't tend to encounter it that often in everyday life." Benjamin: [Referring to the second Agent O quote] "Yeah, that's about all I have to say. The internet is a great thing. People just need to learn not to be on it 24/7." Xero: "I don't think society is regressing at all.", "Someone earlier also mentioned we could be going through "growing pains" as a part of so much technology so fast. That makes sense. I completely agree that some people use the internet as a crutch so they don't have to interact with people in person." But then you came in defending the Internet and listing off all of the positives about it, without making any comment about how peoples' ability to communicate and be civil with each other online has regressed, which was the main point. I even talked about all the positives the Internet has brought to humanity in my initial post, which made your defensive first paragraph pretty much unnecessary. My entire problem with your post wasn't the fact you disagreed with me, it's that you insinuated I observed two examples of technology's effect on our communication skills and decided to write an entire rant about it. To me, that's you being patronizing and suggesting I haphazardly threw together a few paragraphs, without much forethought, because I linked two anecdotes together. It's insulting, and that's why I asked you give me a little more credit than that. I spoke to the fact that this topic was something I had taken notice of in recent years. The personal experiences were included to support my argument, not the other way around. It's an expression. Jesus. How technical are you willing to get? You got the gist of what I was saying, didn't you? P.S: it's "wrote". Nitpick. Sorry. No, you highlighted examples to explain how YOU were led to misconstrue my original points. I'm honestly tired of continuing a conversation that is getting further and further away from the topic. If you wish to continue explaining yourself and picking apart my words for reinterpretation, I encourage you to do so via private message. Thanks.
I would like to point out that with every new piece of technology since time immemorial, people have claimed that it will be the downfall of society. Radio would force us to stay indoors, television would further force us to stay indoors and avoid contact with others, and color television would again FURTHER enforce that idea. The Industrial Revolution was seen by many as a sign of the end of the world as we knew it. It's really all a matter of how you look at it, and to be honest, I see a brighter future with the aid of technology than without. Sure, certain things will give us more hassle than they're worth. Sure, certain pieces of technology will claim to solve problems, when in fact we would never have had that problem if said piece of technology wasn't invented. The technology we have now allows us to communicate in ways we've never been able to communicate before. I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the internet, or any piece of technology available to us that people are less inclined to talk to others, or treat them with respect/caring/whatever. I think that's the fault of the people. There have always been people like that, and there will always be people like that. It's just a fact of life. On top of that, this technology is still relatively new. We're all getting used to balancing use of the internet and text messaging and whatnot with face-to-face interaction. Plus, there are millions of people who do balance the two, on a daily basis. It's all a matter of where you look. Just like with trolls on message boards and such. They are just the loud and annoying minority, but if you go to a board where a lot of trolls gather, they feel like they're the overwhelming majority. Aside from his racist and homophobic comments, and subsequent taunts, I can't see how what he did was "wrong", as such. The object of a game like that is to get a higher score than your opponent, and then attempt to keep them from passing you. It's simple, and unfortunately some people take it a step further and subject their opponent to ridicule, rather than accepting that they played a good game, and congratulating them on their effort. That's where he went wrong, not when he tried to win the game.
The answer is there within what you've quoted. That sort of play is looked down on as cheap and unsporting, and as far as I know when playing most team sports in real life you can potentially be penalised for it.