Monday, February 1, 2010

The post that goes like this . . . seriously, RTWT

Just btw, I simply have to mention that it seems a full half of the posts I glance at these days in the blogosphere go something like this:

One thing this process has made clear to me personally is that defining [blank] is not as easy as you might think. Obviously, the emphasis of this project was on [blank](as it was defined as being about [blank]), but nevertheless the question inevitably came up. . . can we ever truly define [blank]? And once we have, does that mean the conversation about [blank] could, or should, stop? Speaking personally, I almost always argue for inclusion in opening up the conversation about [blank]. Because on the whole, our [blank] tends to be dismissive of [blank] (except for, obviously, [blank]). And personally, that's something I always look at when I look at [blank]. Although I do think there is a crucial distinction to be made in the definition of [blank] that is often overlooked. Which is that this is not a case of [blank] vs. [blank]. Or [blank] vs. [blank]. Not that I am trying to co-opt what may be a good working definition of [blank]; I am instead very much of a mind that the more voices included in the conversation about [blank], the stronger our [blank] will be. So please don't take this as saying you have not been a voice of inclusion about [blank]! I know you have been a voice for inclusion about [blank]! But I have to ask, what do we risk personally by even possibly ignoring unheard voices regarding [blank]? Isn't there room for everyone in the ongoing conversation about [blank]? Because if we look at any time in history when there has been an explosion of innovation in [blank], it has been when differing [blanks] connect and inform each other in an ongoing dialogue about [blank]. So that should be the lynchpin in any discussion of [blank]. [Blank] makes better [blank]. There's no historical precedent to argue against that. Any argument against [blank] is therefore moot. That is why we need more voices about [blank]. Because before we move on in this ongoing conversation, and hear more voices, what [blank], I have to ask, isn't really about [blank]? I mean not about [blank] at all? I don't think any. Everything on some level is about [blank]. Anyway, some very, very exciting things here about [blank], check it out, this is definitely a must-read on [blank]! A lot of good questions are being raised, with everyone ending up in the same place I am at right now: The way to [blank] is to [blank]. We must [blank] to [blank]. We'll have more about [blank] later, but in the meantime, seriously, RTWT.

3 comments:

  1. I don't think I even saw the acronym "RTWT" until a week or two ago when it started appearing almost daily in Parabasis and in a number of other blogs that I am in the habit of visiting with some frequency.

    I had to look that damned acronym up because it wasn't obvious by context. If a writer wishes to encourage people to read, they should not be using faddish acronyms that aren't already part of the operational vocabulary of the target audience. They're too faddish to even shibboleths.

    And by the way, if ever you or anyone else, causes me to laugh my f¥¢£ing ass off, I damn well owe it to you to spell it out in full and not use an acronym.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Ian,

    I meant to mention this on Parabasis before, but RTWT has been a standard blog-used abbreviation for at least five years in the political blog world, it's not really a faddish acronym so much as part of the standard operational vocabulary of blogging.

    That being said, blogging can have its own insular vocabulary-- Balloon Juice, one of my favorite blogs actually started a lexicon because they had so many running jokes that many of their posts were only half legible to new readers, for example-- but I considered RTWT pretty standard blog speak when I started to use it two or so years ago.

    Also, since I've been linking to a lot of people's reacts, I started using it a lot on Parabasis, but now that the Outrageous Fortune read-through is done, you'll probably see less of its usage.

    BTW: there are certain acronyms (BTW, RTWT, w/r/t) that I love and certain ones that i hate. And like you, I hate all of the ones that have to do with laughing. LOL, ROTFLMAO etc. are all terrible. No one laughs that much.

    ReplyDelete