Skip to main content

Likability Determined By Tweets


I read an article today which, for just a split second, made me wonder if it was merely attempting to be satirical for how awful the content really was. I'll let you read the article first. It can be viewed here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-kerpen/why-stephen-colbert-is-mo_b_868471.html

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. As of May 30th of 2011, it can be stated that likability is determined by the quantity of one's Twitter followers. Jon Stewart doesn't have a personal Twitter account, so in its absence, it can be matter-of-factly stated that Stephen Colbert is the more likable of the two.

So, that's what it's come to, eh folks? Tweets? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I watch their shows rather religiously, but I'm not going to be so asinine as to judge their likability on their Twitter followers.

How far will this go? Do we determine Emmy winners based on the number of Twitter followers each show has? Grammy winners? Oscar winners?

What, in the 2012 Presidential Election, are we going to decide the winner based on how many followers the two candidates have on their Twitter accounts?

"This is Brian Williams with NBC News. It's now official. Sarah Palin has won the 2012 Presidential Election by collecting 49,327,914 Twitter followers. Barack Obama's tweets were few and far between and due to his being president at the time and having a great number of responsibilities on his plate, he was unable to close the gap with the former half-term Governor of Alaska, whom seemed to have a great deal of time on her hands in which to attend to her Facebook and Twitter accounts on a very regular basis."

The next time I garner an interest in a woman and if she proposes the question, "Would others say that you're likable?," I'll have to pause for a moment and think, "Crap! I no longer have a Twitter account. I'm royally tweeted!"
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more