According to the NYTimes, You're Poor If You Use Twitter

Today I read an article in the New York Times entitled "Let Them Eat Tweets". It sounds like Alice returned to Wonderland with Easter Peeps for the Queen of Hearts. But, no. Sadly, it is author Virginia Heffernan's way of insulting both collectivist (think family-oriented, unified) societies and technogeeks by calling them- POOR.

"What?!" you may be thinking. Guess someone should tell Bill Gates and the King of Jordan that they can't buy pencils. The author goes with a quote from some idiot who made a speech and said that using Twitter and, as a result, becoming more conncected to people is what poor people do. According to the idiot and Heffernan, if you Twitter, you are poor. Oprah - guess you can't buy pencils either. Hey, Obama and H.Clinton, get to the back of the unemployment line - we were here first!

Below is my polite (but clearly fucking annoyed) response to the NY Times:

"Connectivity is poverty" is a theory that is both elitist and ethnocentric. Western societies tend to be, by nature, individualistic. However, individualistic societies make up only about 30% of the world. The other 60% of the world's population belong to collectivist societies, where the needs of the group are valued above and beyond the needs of the individual. My husband affectionately calls my Hispanic family "The Borg" (think Star Trek) for this reason.

Collectivists societies do not exist without a constant connection between members. The widespread use of Twitter to connect people can be seen as a move to less traditional, cold, puritanical Western ways of relating to others. However, Virginia Heffernan (the author) ponders whether collectivity is poverty.

When I read about the original speaker, I thought that his comment was racist and ethnocentric. Why is the image of a WASP alone in his library the only way to portray the wealthy?! There are many many many people in this world that are extremely wealthy that do belong to collectivist societies.

Abraham Maslow taught us that man cannot exist without love. Love of peers, family, society. Without love, people often become suicidal (even if they have money). So, why, when people are finally reaching out to know one another and to love thy neighbor (even if they are far away) do we see this as a codependant and clingy act? Perhaps Twitter made the world a little happier; made people feel a little more loved. A little connectivity goes a long way. And guess what, author and reader, I am connected, well-educated, wealthy, and proud to use Twitter.