Wtf ppl?

Hi.\nHey.\nSup?\nNot too much, you?\nNot a lot.\nThanks to AOL Instant Messenger, AIM, if you will, probably the vast majority of us -- college students, adolescents of the '90s -- have had conversations beginning similarly, if not exactly, to that above.\nThanks to the simplicity of the AIM conversation, we never have to face rejection firsthand again. Our vocal chords can rest. We never have to encounter awkward eye contact. We don't even have to wear underpants as we speak to our peers via AIM, nor do we ever need 2 type out whole words. Sleazy and efficient!\nAIM also provides a channel for the most intense passive-aggressive expression known to mankind: the away message. Bitter about an ex? Insert Avril Lavigne song lyrics. Confused about the conclusion of your last date? A quote from "Family Ties." Never had a date? Some obscure allusion to "Star Wars."\nThough sarcasm saturates my words, I fail to believe there is anything inherently "bad" about communicating via AIM. Sure, conversations in person -- and even over the telephone -- are more effective means of communication, as a person's vocal and facial expressions are lost among the lines of text in an instant message box. Plus, over AIM, the poor English language takes a beating with online jargon and the laziness of conversation participants regarding accurate punctuation, verb agreement and capitalization.\nBut like with any form of low-cultured entertainment -- browsing Facebook, watching "Laguna Beach," eating kittens -- people typically speak of their AIM chats with a hint of dishonor and embarrassment (when it's brought up in the public sphere at all). Meanwhile, people who do not partake in such activities often speak with arrogance about their high and mighty lifestyle that excludes such nominal activities. And that's fantastic. You don't fill your days with mindless entertainment -- ever! Congratulations! Unless you're finding a cure for AIDS or passing out sandwiches to homeless children with the free time in your day, you're a jackass -- or at least unnecessarily arrogant.\nTo participate in a low-cultured activity -- that is, to have an AIM chat, to eagerly watch "Grey's Anatomy," to buy a Van Gogh print at Hobby Lobby -- is not shameful, and I resent the stigmas that come along with such activities.\nAfter all, we don't all have the time and money to enjoy ballets, tours of the Met or ... conversations with human beings?\nOK, so talking over AIM isn't quite the same as a HALO marathon. And I would never advocate AIM chats over a discussion at the dinner table. Of course, the latter is more meaningful or at least more personal.\nI would, however, advocate the elimination of any feelings of guilt from it.\nOnline conversations, just like reality television and dangerous, unproductive wars, are part of our culture now. Talking online doesn't mean you're a coward or a bad friend, it just means you're lazy. And very, very normal.\nI gtg -- ttyl.