The Hashtag is Ruining English Language

This article is the sort of facile idiocy that gives scholars of the English language a bad name. The author begins his descent into idiocy by 'arguing' that the use of #winning by people who are not in fact winning is a war crime on par with bombing an orphanage. If the author believes that until the hashtag, nobody had ever exaggerated their own self worth, I have a position in the White House to offer him. He goes on to describe how the hashtag is simplistic, how it's too popular, and how it's causing the death of rational discourse.

The author is clearly a "back in my day" moron with rosy memories of a past he likely never lived through (judging by his youthful profile picture). This article is an awkward collection of logical fallacies (because of course if Chomsky doesn't use Twitter, it's worthless) and hyperbolic ramblings whose sole purpose is to drive clicks on one of the many failing internet journals, whose geriatric editors approve such pieces biweekly as Twitter and Facebook steal what relevance they have left. People like this tiny man have been raving about the end of the English language for at least two hundred years, and their predictive track record is as pathetic as their careers.

Written in first person using words like, we, makes the style of the article very informal. Calling hashtags a tumor and worse than a meme adds to the casual style of writing. And throughout I saw a few curse words which adds to the laid back feel of the article.

People use hashtags because it makes them seem cool or like they are a part of. But the author is saying it shouldn’t be this way, they say people shouldn’t feel like they need to add a hashtag to be cool. The author also seems to be making the claim that hashtags are making us lazy. The author obviously wishes people would stop using hashtags and would just start writing out what they actually mean.

The author is very relaxed. They’re stating their claim and don’t seem to care if you agree or not. They’re fine with whatever. Even though the author wants people to stop using hashtags, he accepts that people will probably continue using them for a long time coming.

I think people don’t just express the things they hashtag because people really are lazy. I agree with the author that adding a hashtag that says, see what I did there, take away all irony or sarcasm that was originally in the post.

This article is written in a casual style, that seems to seek to impress its readers with bold statements that mean little (such as calling a hashtag a "linguistic tumor"). In a lot of ways, it seems as though the things Biddle dislikes about hashtags are things that his own writing contains. He criticizes them for taking up space in a platform known for being concise yet he rambles along in this article, often attempting to link every sentence to a pop culture reference. Perhaps he does this in an attempt to prove that he is not against all internet/modern trends but it feels a bit forced. 

Biddle argues that hashtags give writers a shortcut of sorts, allowing writers to be less emotive in the majority of their text. He seems to see hashtags as isolated in their ability to do this. However, I think that this is part of a larger pattern as far as text on the internet. People have created a kind of shorthand for expressing their emotions and the mood of the text visually such as Capitalizing Words, italicizing, bolding, l e a v i n g  s p a c e s, putting double commas, etc. All of this leads to an internet shorthand of sorts that I think is interesting and useful rather than just,,lazy. I also am surprised that he took this stand, seeing as though he even includes " (!) " in his writing, another internet trend.  

Overall, I am unimpressed with his arguments. It feels like he is an older millennial who feels like he deserves to understand all of the internet trends but fails to. I think it was interesting to read the piece though. 

The author's argument indicates how the hashtag is a fad that has become overpopularized on the internet. Also, the author suggests that people are using the hashtag improperly and relying on it too much. The author's tone and delivery throughout the article is off-putting by negatively discussing the hashtag usage on the internet. However, the author does not recognize that there could be benefits by including the hashtag.

According to the article, the original intent of the hashtag is to group and to categorize topics more efficiently. This purpose of the hashtag still exists today when people search a hashtag about a certain issue. The author only mentions how the hashtag is used often in frivolous situations. There are instances of the hashtag utilized in popular culture; while, there is also the usage of the hashtag inwell-constructed and thoughtful arguments that contain facts.

There are some people who place the hashtag too frequently in their posts for the sake of remaining relevant and intertwined in popular culture. Yet, the author is dismissive of how the hashtag has allowed for the creation of important changes and conversations to occur in society such as the #metoo movement. The author needs to understand that the hashtag can be beneficial despite its shortcomings.

This article seems more like a sensationalized, emotional rant than it does a structured argument. Though the author makes a claim and supports it with with evidence in a way, the language used is very informal and almost ironic. The author explains how the hashtag is "ruining the English language" by making people care less about the verbiage they are using, and then uses verbiage that makes him seem discomposed and flustered. 

The author goes on tangents and strays away from the topic at hand, which weakens his argument. Even the title itself is taking a sensationalist approach at gaining an audience. The beginning of the article explains the history of the hashtag, which is promising for a well-researched argument; however, the debate falls short on his end as the article progresses. It lacks evidence and tries to speak for an entire group of people from a first person narrative. 

There is a lack of acknowledgement of a counterargument in this work as well. The author is extremely negative and pessimistic, and instead of trying to rebuke an opposing argument, he drags on without care for outside opinions. This is something I found to be detrimental to his argument because there are so many reasons that the topic at hand is a good thing. If he brought those up and still found a way to talk about how they were harmful to the English language, he would have had a much  stronger argument.

This article is the epitome of "first world problems" in the English language. Out of all of the things he could nitpick, he chose one that only truly has popularity and relevance in the digital world where shortened phrases and acronyms are used every day to transmit messages and thoughts faster. This by no means correlates to the demise of the English language. Arguing that the use of the hashtag is irrelevant or "out of bounds" show just how disconnected the author is from the language of this generation. 

The author seeks to ridicule those who do use the hashtag by displaying examples of others and using negative language to shame them into thinking a simple pound sign has the potential to disrupt an entire language. The hashtag is simply something that has manifested into another way people express themselves. The English language is constantly evolving and changing over time, something that is inevitable and people shouldn't be terrified of. The author seems to avoid acknowledging the benefits of using the hashtag such as easy organization and the ability to bring others together. 

I couldn't help but laugh a bit at this article because it seems like a stereotypical representation of an older generation getting frustrated at a younger generation for being innovative, instead deeming it "lazy." I believe that the hashtag can be very useful and by no means signifies the downfall of the English language. 

I enjoyed the casual style of the article, it made it easier to read. However, the content itself, I did not agree with. Language has always been in continuous development, and saying one trend is ruining the entire language seems silly. He calls those who use hashtags 'lazy', but that same argument could be said about our version of English compared to the English spoken several hundreds of years ago. Language is always about communicating in the most convenient and simple way possible. If someone is giving a life update on twitter or facebook, then it's unnecessary for them to describe their feelings, like he suggests. Tweets and facebook posts are supposed to be quick and succinct to read, and move on. It's not that people are no longer able to speak without hashtags, but rather the fact that hashtags are more convenient to convey an idea. 

I don't agree with the argument, and in the end, it seems like someone who isn't used to social media is feeling left out that social media is evolving without them. I also don't see any way how hashtags make people dumber. It doesn't change spoken language at all. No one uses hashtags in real life. I agree with the comment previously posted, saying that hashtags are another way of conveying emotion, like bolding, capitalizing, or italicizing text. In my opinion, the hashtag just doesn't matter that much. It might stop being used, it might always be used. It's still English, regardless.

I found this article to be interesting. As posted previously in the comments, the author of the article seems to be an "old school" person in the sense that accepting this new form of writing is unbearable. This delivers a negative outlook on hashtags in a very casual style.

The author does not like how hashtags are being used in a sense to fit in with certain situations and social media posts. I disagree to this argument due to how twitter is formatted. Twitter now allows a user to post a tweet with 280 characters, doubled from the original 140. I find the use of the hashtag to categorize feelings, events, etc. into specific groups. Those that feel sad or mad can just simply put a # and their overall mood. Based on twitter being the most relevant and popular platform to use hashtags, from what I have seen, I hypothesize that they created this hashtag culture for a reason... to have clear and concise tweets getting the point across but also to categorize information in a manner to group information so that others can find it. 

As technology has continued to innovate, so has the English language. Instead of newspapers, we now have short blurbs on information that summarize events as a whole. Twitter being a leader with their platform, encourages this summary with the character limit. The author refuses to accept that things are changing and tries to shame the use of the hashtag.

This article seems more like an angry internet rant rather than a persuasive argument for why the hashtag is ruining the English language. Despite acknowledging the fact that the English language has evolved and will continue to evolve, the author still seems unable to accept any changes that don't fit into their narrow definition of what the English language can be. This author comes off as a bitter, traditionalist when it comes to the English language. In the article, no real argument was presented for why the hashtag shouldn't be used. I especially found it annoying that the author took to shaming people that used it simply because he doesn't see any value in using a hashtag. By limiting the English language in the way that the author wants, he is ignoring a lot of the benefits that can come from using hashtags.  

I personally believe that while some people overuse hashtags they can still be useful and an interesting development within language. The fact that a single hashtag can convey the meaning of a message so clearly that almost anyone that sees it knows what it means is rather fascinating. The use of a hashtag can be a powerful tool, one example being the #metoo movement as someone has already stated in their response. When people see #metoo there are specific emotions and meanings attached to that hashtag. The whole tone and message of a post on Twitter can be changed when that hashtag is added to it. 

In the end, the author comes off as a staunch traditionalist that can't and will not accept any changes to the English language even when there are benefits to it. 

As a young adult, I encounter hashtags, even use them myself, every single day and have never been concerned with my generation's language skills. To be fair, this article was written in 2011 when many people were still adjusting to smart phones and social media accounts, but I believe Biddle failed to see the value that hashtags can have in actually aiding the English language. For example, hashtags connect people to breaking news - #PrayforAmazonia, #Greenland, #MuellerReport - in ways that not only provide quick information (albeit sometimes #FakeNews) but also the opinions and arguments of experts, peers, and international perspectives. The danger arises when hashtags bring people together in ways that simply bolster their opinions rather than offer a range of new and diverse ideas. Biddle doesn't address the issue of instant news beyond Charlie Sheen letting us all know that he is #Winning. This may be partly due to the "newness" of hashtags and social media in the early 2010's as opposed to 2019, but even more likely to do with the fact that people have become more creative with their uses of hashtags. 

Biddle puts down unskilled hashtaggers as if they do not understand how to otherwise add substance to their writing. I would argue that in fact these early hashtaggers were essential in creating what is now a clear understanding of a "successful" hashtag. Short, witty, to the point, and bonus points for alliteration. I disagree that the hashtag itself is ruining the English language. Poor grammar and spell check should certainly rank highest on the list for potentially language skill-killing concerns. A few commenters seem to agree with me regarding that point. One even pointed out that the tweet "Just dropped my girl off at GameStop shes gonna bey me Call of Duty cause were both high LOL #winning" is actually made more clear by the hashtag, despite a total lack of punctuation and several misspelled words. There are truly worse offenses than a "lazy" hashtag.

Biddle is not only abrasive in his argument against hashtags, but also inconsiderate of its wide array of uses, making his argument hard to swallow. A softer approach would have been more effective, especially when attacking an internet fad that so many have come to enjoy. His argument isn't necessarily lost on me, but it certainly loses the full weight that I believe the author had hoped it would have. 

At first glance of this article, one could think that the author is prepared to have some eloquent and well formed arguments about the future of language with the ubiquity of the internet. The author does bring up some examples surrounding his main argument. However, his central argument, that being hashtags are lazy and facade-bearing, is quite undeveloped. The examples he does give are not compelling and, quite frankly, far-fetched. I feel as the author was attempting to deliver his message, his own anger and frustration clouded his logic and coherency. His arguments therefore suffered a certain amount of weight and importance in my mind. 

Upon further research into Biddle himself, I found that he seems to fall victim to the very internet futilities that he complains about. Other articles he's written share a similar uselessness like "What to Pack for a Nuclear Attack You Probably Won't Survive Anyways" or "Everything I Bought on Amazon in 2015, Reviewed." It seems to me that this man is a prisoner in the Internet world he writes for and lacks the discipline and knowledge to escape from it. 

The author is clearly passionate about this subject. However, as many have noted, this passion comes across more as needless vitriol. The paragraph on Charlie Sheen reads like an "edgy" high school student getting his feelings out. Moreover, his negative thoughts on the community aspect of the hashtag seem like he is begging to be invited to the party.

Beyond the imperfect tone, I feel that the author also took a myopic viewpoint on the topic. While he spends roughly 1,000 words detailing what he views to be poor uses of hashtags, he takes no time to consider that there may be good uses of the hashtag. Used correctly, the hashtag adds texture and variety to tweets. This allows the twitter medium to take on a unique style of discourse and aesthetic. For that reason, I cannot sympathize with this rant.

Sam Biddle made many claims that I completely agree with, including that hashtags have become popular to the point that people use them without meaning and replace the use of actual words in a way that really doesn’t make a lot of sense. This article is written argumentatively to obviously sway the reader into understanding the ludicrous nature of hashtags in our society, while Biddle utilizes a directly assertive style. He comes off as mocking the use of hashtags, including a few instances where he adds simple and funny hash tagged phrases following a statement that ridicules hashtags. I found the delivery of the article to be relaxed and casual but I think Biddle is a bit too forceful in denying the use of hashtags.

Hashtags can have a usefulness when used how they were created, by linking posts relating to the same event with that hashtag. For instance, if someone wanted to find posts on Instagram about Independence Day, one would only have to look at posts under #July4. Overall I agree with most points made in this article but I don’t envision that the popularity of using hashtags in a simplistic way will change anytime soon. 

I'd like to start this off by saying that I, much like Sam Biddle, find the hashtag to be annoying at times. Unlike Biddle, however, I do not have some odd fetish for hating hashtags. I just find myself getting slightly vexed when people post a tweet or picture and follow it up with multiple, sentence-long hashtags. On the flip side, I am strong believer that the hashtag can be very helpful and even at times funny when used correctly. For instance, if I'm scrolling through twitter and one of my friends says to me, "Hey did you hear about the Yankees game last night?" I can easily search "#Yankees" and find out exactly what he is referring to. This satisfies both my hunger for curiosity and my laziness. For that, I am thankful the hashtag was invented. 

Sam Biddle's article is on the usage of the hashtag and argues why it is ruining the English language. Mister Biddle's main argument is that the hashtag is ruining talking. He begins his argument stating the origin of the hashtag - that it was first introduced by Chris Messina, a Google employee, to "tag" tweets and find specific information about a subject. Then, Biddle talks about how hashtag went out of their original intent and became a "linguistic tumor". This tumor is that hashtag has become a sort of vulgar crutch, "a lazy reach for substance in the personal void".

The style of Biddle's article is very informal. He uses the first-person point of view and informal language, going as far as calling Chris Messina, a Google employee, "dude". Biddle's style is not academic but is written in a way that anyone who knows English, can read it. 

The delivery is not good. The first problem is that Biddle did not acknowledge or go into depth any of the benefits hashtags has on the English language beyond a sentence of two. Second, at the end of the article, Biddle did not talk about any potential solution that may solve the hashtag problem. Instead, Biddle was inclined to just putting in that "there's nothing we can do about it".

Based on the comments, there are individuals who agree, disagree, or further a different point to Biddle. For the ones who agree with Biddle, they state how Twitter was what destroyed conversation, and that it is hashtags that destroyed the English language. For the ones who disagree with Biddle, their main argument is that it is not the hashtag that is the problem, the problem is the lack of proper grammar or punctuation. These individuals believe that the hashtag is the least of the problems. For the others, for the most part, their main point is that it is not about Twitter or the hashtag, but rather, the greater problem is the failing education system currently in place. The education system is the main root of what's causing individuals to not know the fundamentals of spelling, grammar, and proper writing techniques. 

I agree with the article for a few different reasons. First, before I even read the article I thought about how the hashtag is making people less thoughtful. Instead of even texting regular sentences many people think that sending a # can take place of a sentence. It has had a really negative impact on people. But, for twitter it has been amazingly successful. It gives people the opportunity to explain themselves and talk about the same things with the simple use of a word. According to the article, the hashtag has became a “linguistic tumor- a tic more irritating than any banal link or lazy image meme”(gizmodo.com) . I also paid quite a big attention to the style of the article. It is a friendly tone that explains rather than educationally informs. For example, they use words like annoying and irritating so people can relate, rather than thinking of higher level educational words that would sound better in an article. Next, I agree on the argument that the hashtag makes people feel like they are part of a group. Being part of a group naturally makes people feel confident, and if other people are talking about it it makes it less intimidating to comment on. Like before, the delivery comes off well to me. But, I believe that instead of only focusing on the bad, he gives himself away. If he was to focus on good things also, people could respect the article and feel like the author explains both good and bad ways with a unbiased view.

I agree with the article for a few different reasons. First, before I even read the article I thought about how the hashtag is making people less thoughtful. Instead of even texting regular sentences many people think that sending a # can take place of a sentence. It has had a really negative impact on people. But, for twitter it has been amazingly successful. It gives people the opportunity to explain themselves and talk about the same things with the simple use of a word. According to the article, the hashtag has became a “linguistic tumor- a tic more irritating than any banal link or lazy image meme”(gizmodo.com) . I also paid quite a big attention to the style of the article. It is a friendly tone that explains rather than educationally informs. For example, they use words like annoying and irritating so people can relate, rather than thinking of higher level educational words that would sound better in an article. Next, I agree on the argument that the hashtag makes people feel like they are part of a group. Being part of a group naturally makes people feel confident, and if other people are talking about it it makes it less intimidating to comment on. Like before, the delivery comes off well to me. But, I believe that instead of only focusing on the bad, he gives himself away. If he was to focus on good things also, people could respect the article and feel like the author explains both good and bad ways with a unbiased view.

From the very introduction of this article, I knew I would not agree with the tone of approach. As a dedicated Twitter user from 2013 to now, I know first hand that the content produced and shared on Twitter is not 99% "hashtag noise." 

However, the author makes some valid points. The hashtag does show that you are part of a community. As most of my Twitter usages have revolved around supporting one artist or another, I know that I've used a hashtag to be included in an online community. Even so, the depth of a hashtag extends beyond that. For example, take a major news event and how a hashtag usually forms around that. It is easier to find tweets related to that event using the hashtag rather than spending hours on Twitter searching for similar content. The hashtag allows users to organize thoughts on the internet together. 

The most offensive part of the article is the suggestion that the hashtag makes a user or community look stupid. First, the journalist/author of this article has benefited from the use of hashtags in this very article. Further, it is extremely dangerous as a journalist to make such bold assumptions of a huge population that uses hashtags to reduce them to "stupid." Rather, I think the simplification of language using a hashtag is actually sophisticated. The fact that we as a society have evolved far enough to communicate a range of emotions and thoughts in a few characters following a hashtag is actually remarkable. 

In my opinion, this article makes some valid points, but largely centers on making assumptions about hashtag users as a whole. While I agree that the hashtag is conducive to organization and the development of a community surrounding that topic, I find it disingenuous to suggest that hashtag users are representative of a reduction of the english language. Rather, I believe the effective use of a hashtag represents social media savvy and the ability to communicate differently based on the medium of communication. Part of Twitter's core value is the character limit, and that characteristic requires users to write in a way which is different from an essay format. The ability to adapt the way you communicate based on the medium is a skill, and I find it lazy of the writer of this article to suggest it is killing the language. 

I agreed with some of the points of the article in regards to how the hashtag can make a user a part of a group. However, looking at the large scale of things, I don't really think this article is very professional and it seems as if the writer is ranting about hashtags rather than actually looking at modern internet culture with a calm mind. I think the hashtag can further someone's point or help reach more people and is actually helpful when used wisely. 

The article has a very informal approach, and it is very emotionally charged. It seems as if the author is ranting just because they feel left out. Hashtags are a small simple aspect of communication online, and I feel as if they are a harmless addition to a tweet or post. They add a way to categorize posts by different users and also can be used to add some style and casual modern flare to posts.