blogger mc everyman wrote this post defending twitter when he should have been writing about architecture. it's a classic case of an elitist trying to not look like an elitist by standing up for non-elitists who are being criticized by other elitists. geoff manaugh went ape-shit yesterday after maureen dowd wrote a tongue-in-cheek op-ed column trashing twitter. manaugh characterizes dowd is an elitist who wants to stifle anyone whom she doesn't approve of...which is mostly true...but that has nothing to do with her (or other's) criticism of twitter. throughout the post manaugh labors the notion that every thought is significant, and that twitter gives a voice to the gagged masses who have been yearning for a creative outlet. oyr. he seems to confuse the technology itself with the manner in which it's most often used. no one is complaining about a note taking technology that allows users to post messages limited to 140 characters, or the possibilities associated with such technology. twitter detractors, twittractors, are annoyed that twitter takes the sort of inane thoughts that were once relegated to personal diaries and the private mind and posts them publicly with the presumed arrogance that anyone wants to know your every thought. for some, twittercism may be caught up in class-ism and gender politics, but for me, and i assume many, twittercism is about the ego of twitterers. i don't want to know anyone's every thought, not virginia woolf, not my own mother's, in fact, sometimes i even wish i could escape my own thoughts. and as for maureen dowd, manaugh needs to take his own advice and get the f over it. maureen dowd is a polemicist, and if you can't approach her writing with that in mind, then don't read what she writes.
P.S. as a facebook account holder, and someone who just wrote a blog entry, this argument is obvi on shaky ground.
P.P.S. this twitter is sort of interesting. and actually requires some thought!
“I want him to succeed. But I am very upset by what he’s not done in terms of rights of gays and lesbians. I understand it tactically in a campaign, but at this point I don’t know. There is some belief that he actually doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage. But it’s fundamentally inexcusable for a member of the Democratic Party to stand on the principle that separate is now equal, but only on the basis of sexual orientation. We’ve always fought for the rights of minorities and against the whims of majorities.”
