By Michala Chen
It has come to my attention that evolution inarguably intended for necks to bend at a 45 degree angle. After all, how else might we adequately venerate the luminous rectangles we reverently call “phones?” In light of this biological destiny, I propose that we reject the subversive doctrines of mindful consumption, in-person relationships, and screen time limits, as these radical concepts threaten the very backbone (nature’s deemed 45 degree angle) of modern civilization.
First, we must firmly oppose the reckless notion of practicing mindful consumption rather than passive scrolling. The philosophy of mindfulness dares to suggest that one should open an app with intention and scroll with awareness. Such inquiries are the gateway to independent thought, and independent thought fosters a crippling sense of responsibility when one realizes the consequences of their actions. Why subject oneself to the burden of self-awareness when one could drown their worries in an endless sea of content? Passive scrolling, by contrast, is gloriously effortless and efficient. One does not need to dwell on the worries of life, but they could let the algorithm, like a benevolent deity, guide their attention through an infinite stream of videos or memes. With passive scrolling, there is no need to think critically nor confront the realities of life, but every swipe is a small act of liberation from responsibility. If such serene detachment can be achieved through passive scrolling, what conceivable incentive remains for mindfulness?
What’s more, when passive scrolling is an option, there is no need for an individual to ever consider in-person friendships. Face-to-face interaction is riddled with inefficiencies. There’s no mute button, no camera filters, and no leave call buttons. What if you suddenly don’t want to talk anymore, and there’s no excuse of wifi cutting out? You’ll be stuck talking to that individual for hours with no option to lower their volume. Additionally, in-person friendships derive humanity from the delightful surprise when finding out your online friend isn’t truly who they say they are. Where is the suspense? The dramatic plot twist? Face-to-face interaction stubbornly insists on authenticity from the very beginning, and rudely aligns a person’s identity with their actual appearance and voice. How tragically predictable. Truly, if we stick to in-person relationships, we eliminate the possibility of curated identities and exciting unveilings. After all, what is friendship without a little uncertainty and creative ambiguity?
Finally, we must address the most tyrannical reform of all, which is the introduction of screen time limits. Advocates, often parental in nature, boldly argue that reducing usage improves sleep, strengthens focus, and improves mental health. However, such arguments overlook the profound cost of such constraint. With limits imposed, no one is able to stay informed about every minor trend that social media is spiraling about. How then is one expected to participate as a functioning member of society? Therefore, for the preservation of progress, productivity, and evolutionarily sanctioned posture, we must resolutely dismiss these misguided reforms and remain faithfully devoted to the eternal use of social media.
Welcome to The Shield‘s annual satire section. Writers use satire to improve a problem in society. Sometimes readers misunderstand the satire as they do not recognize the hyperbole, irony, rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and understatements. Readers may mistake the satirical solution for the actual solution that the writer proposes. The ideas in these satire stories do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Shield or Westmont. If one is confused about satire, please contact a friendly neighborhood English teacher.