I witnessed a spectacular row in a beer garden this summer. My fellow voyeurs and I guessed the couple were on a date — not their first, but perhaps their second or third — and he had checked his notifications too often for her liking.
“Why don’t you just date your phone instead?” she snapped, standing up to leave. “Hope you’re happy together.”
I have edited out a few F-bombs, but that was the gist. Sadly, she drained her drink rather than sloshing it in his face. Reader, I nearly stood up and applauded.
Illustration: Mountain People
“Phubbing” — a portmanteau of “phone snubbing,” or deciding to interact with your mobile phone rather than a person — is a 21st-century epidemic.
Last week, scientists confirmed, as they often do, what we already knew — that phubbing is bad for relationships.
Well, duh.
The study warned that it could even cost you your marriage. Couples who frequently phub experience more marital dissatisfaction. If your husband is a phubbee or your wife is a phone widow, beware.
“When individuals perceive that their partners are phubbing, they feel more conflict and less intimacy,” researchers from Nigde Omer Halisdemir University in Turkey said. “People should be mindful about being present with their loved ones to show they care and put their phone away.”
Amen, my white-coated friends.
I cannot bear being phubbed. The habit is not just rude, it sends a message that actual people matter less than digital ones. You are effectively saying that non-urgent e-mails and the latest Twitter spat are more interesting than a “catch up” with that valued pal you see twice a year. Sorry mate, was my amusing anecdote keeping you from liking Instagram pictures of sunsets?
The ultimate phubbing insult is watching videos or browsing TikTok with the sound up. A friendship-ending offense, frankly.
I am accustomed to being phubbed by my children. Born in the era of smartphones, online gaming and social media, they are part of the “grunt a reply without even looking up” generation. To maintain sanity, we have a strict screen curfew and ban at mealtimes. It is a matter of manners. Boundaries. Standards. Other words that infuriate youngsters.
From partners or peers, phubbing is less forgivable. The average person spends 3 hours, 23 minutes a day on their phone and checks it 58 times. It has become a buzzing, beeping comfort blanket. If you must have it to hand, at least keep it face down out of courtesy. Besides, you can always peep when they nip to the toilet.
When is it OK to phub?
Perhaps when you arrive early at a large meeting and there is a tacit agreement to swerve small talk until everyone arrives. In social situations, only phub for the communal good. This might include finding a funny meme, looking up a fondly remembered recipe or confirming a celebrity’s age, height, whether they are still alive.
When is it not OK?
During dates, mealtimes, work appraisals, weddings, funerals and sex.
There are polite ways to phub. See the old: “Sorry, I’ve got to take this” gesture, or the classic mouthed apology and eye roll in mid-phone conversation. If you must phub, explain why and keep it short.
Awaiting communication from a family member or crucial work news? Fine.
Checking in on the latest Love Island recoupling? Not fine.
A midweek soccer match not involving your team does not qualify, despite how the TV station hypes it up. Be honest and don’t lie about it. I call this “phibbing.”
It also raises the question of what we did in the dark days before mobile phones. Hide behind the newspaper like a grumpy dad? Retreat to the kitchen or garden shed to “potter” (i.e. get some peace and quiet)?
Maybe we stared blankly into space until somebody said “penny for them,” or clicked their fingers in front of our face to snap us out of it. Those people can phub right off.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS