Response "Always On"

As a member of western society, I feel as if "we", the western world, are always on. One might wonder, what does he mean by "always on"? To me, being "always on" is to be stimulated by your own image. So for example Hillary Clinton and Vitaly Zdorovetskiy ("Vitaly"); both have quite a following in the western world. Of course, Hillary is the democratic nominee running for President, who sports a questionable past, and has the need to always be on. On the other hand, russian immigrant, Vitaly, might be the most popular YouTube sensation in the history of the search engine. Vitaly, is known for streaking during the NBA Finals, and other countless prank videos on YouTube.

So, is there a difference between being fake and "always on". I don't think there's a definitive answer. When watching Vitaly's videos' on YouTube, we see a charasmatic personality that appears to be real - no fluff; he doesn't have history to analyze. Whereas, Hillary appears to be more fake than anything, as she tries to cover up her sketchy past regarding confidential emails.

In the below picture, Hillary, appears to be "on" looking presidential and telling the American people how "strong" and "honest" she is. Moreover, Vitaly appears to be living the life of a twenty something Youtube sensation - partying with house music star, Steve Aoki and others. This appears to the real Vitaly. I think history plays a major part in being "always on". Without history, one can only assume the present.  

   

Credibility of Wikipedia

After reading three blogs regarding the credibility of Wikipedia, I've formulated an opinion - I do think Wikipedia is a credible source. Credibility is the result of various opinions being confirmed by a majority. So, if Jimmy posts on Wikipedia that Dr. Vrooman was born in Dallas, where in fact he was born in Los Angeles, sources can flag this fallacy and disapprove it. This is the beauty of Wikipedia - the majority determines credibility. Herein lies the problem, not everyone can discern this difference between "Truth" and credibility. Truth is essentially you absorbing an opinion and pruning that opinion to a personal belief, whereas credibility determined by a majority. In this case, the numbers win - the more people that confirm an opinion the more credible it is. Therefore, Wikipedia should be deemed a credible source.

Gifting Theory

The gifting theory is an interesting phenomenon. Just kidding... It's not a phenomenon - it's how the world works. The theory is rather simple, but when the outsider peels back the layers - they might think twice.

As a gifting society, we essentially give to receive. I personally do not believe anyone gives as they say, "from the bottom of their heart", and doesn't expect anything in return. Churches are a perfect example, they are happy to give whatever they have e.g, money, clothes, food, etc... but they expect you to live a christian life or come to church in return. If Jimmy accepts food from the local church and doesn't show up on Sunday, is the church going to keep supplying him with food? Maybe so, but ninety nine percent of the congregation will feel differently because they're not receiving the internal return of Jimmy living the life "they" live. The church must feel they are receiving internal return of the gift they gave. This reigns true in every facet of life, as life wouldn't be worth living if there were not things expected in return. The world would be a "broke", society.