The #pros and #cons of Hashtags

In light of Facebook introducing clickable hashtags onto statuses, I felt this needed to be said.

Hashtagging. Unless you aren't part of any online social network, we've all seen it, most of us have used it (even ironically, don't deny it). Most of them looking something like this:

"Just ate a grape #yum #fruit #grape #sexy #summer #starbucks #ilovegrapes"

Hashtagging, if you aren't aware, is a method of tagging one's posts or updates with relevant tags so the post will be found when searched, or to keep one's posts organized. It originated on popular social networking platform Twitter, and branched off from there.

Gradually, the hashtags, named aptly for the "#" that precedes the tag known as a "hash", evolved beyond simple tagging. They became a way for users to include afterthoughts of what they just said. It's something that's evolved past simple tagging, although that still remains. For example:

"Just saw Iron Man 3! #totallyawesome #wouldseeitagain"

There are pros and cons to this new feature crawling around the Internet.

#PROS

01.) ORGANIZATION. The biggest appeal of hashtagging is that it's a form of organization. With hashtags, one can see a wide variety of posts on the same subject in one place. This is helpful for those searching for posts and information about puppies or the earthquake that just rocked Japan. It saves a lot of time for the searcher.

02.) ACCESSIBILITY. Part of the first pro, by using a hashtag, it makes said update easier to find for others. The tweet/photo/etc gets more recognition rather if it was left untagged (unhashed?). 

03.) CREATIVITY. With the power to tag an update with anything, one can create afterthoughts of their tweets, which can be pretty clever and add another dimension to the thought behind the status. A great example is of the hashtag "#StandWithWendy" for supporters Wendy Davis' filibuster to unite together and show their support and solidarity.

#CONS

01.) IRRELEVANT TAGS. By tagging a picture of an orange as "#orange," this allows said picture of an orange to appear if someone so desires to search for citrus fruit statues on Twitter or Instagram. By hashtagging it, the user is implying that they want their photo of their delicious orange to be found and appreciated by others.

HOWEVER, when said users tag their vapid statuses with useless tags, what I like to call hashtag abuse, it is all out attention-seeking. I call this tag abuse.

"Look at my pretty #toenails! #hot #sunny #onedirection #justinbeiber #nail #polish #spanisharmada"

I mean, for God's sake, anyone remotely interested in boy bands or Hispanic naval fleets will come across the picture of sandal-clad feet and wonder something like, "Why the hell is this in the tag?"
This person is basically hoping that by tagging their photo with irrelevant tags, it'll garner more attention.
The result: people looking in that actual tag will just be annoyed.

02.) PROMOTIONAL TAGS. I see it everywhere. Almost every single advertisement on TV, there's a little hashtag in the corner so you can tweet about the commercial you just saw. A lot of businesses are using hashtags to target who they market and sell to online. The same goes for television shows. For example, I watch the show Once Upon A Time, and I always see "#OnceUponATime" or "#OUAT" in the corner of the screen. 

This provides one uniform hashtag for viewers to use when updating their twitters about the episode. This is often called "livetweeting", giving play-by-play commentary on what's going on.
Now, by them providing the tag, it makes it even easier on the network to prowl Twitter and find out who's watching what and when.
This is simply another advertising scheme, trying to unify the users and gather them all in one place to figure out their main demographics. Tip to the advertisers and marketing teams: Adding it to every single commercial and TV show is really out of hand and unnecessary.

03.) IRRELEVANCE BETWEEN SITES. As we know, Facebook has started using clickable hashtags. We all knew this day would come eventually. However, this proves to be mainly service to advertisers if nothing else. People use Twitter and Facebook for different purposes. Twitter is for shorter soundbites while Facebook is much more extensive and languid (I use the term loosely). Most people just search normal keywords in Facebook, while hashtags are the best way to navigate updates on Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr. 

04.) USE OUTSIDE OF INTERNET. Every time someone actually says out loud "hashtag ____" un-ironically, the eye-rolling commences. Twitter =/= actual face-to-face conversation. It's the modern equivalent to the air quotes.
Like many an English teacher has told me: show, don't tell. Convey your emotions through your word choice rather than slapping on a "#sad" instead.

The best example I've had was when my English professor was talking about Hamlet if it was set in modern times: 

"Ophelia just broke up with me #woebegone"

I honestly cracked up at that.

Overall, I believe that hashtags outside of where they are relevant are seriously asinine. But, they do serve their purpose and are quite useful (but severely overdone in most facets of media).

What's your stance on the new hashtag craze? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.


Till next time xx,

Sierra


***NOTE: All examples used I made up on the spot, save the last one, and are exaggerated for emphasis. 

When a filibuster is more than a filibuster

All right you guys, I'm about to get political over here. Brace yourselves.

(source)

Meet real-life Wonder Woman Senator Wendy Davis. She holds a seat in the Texas legislature. On June 25th, 2013 starting at 11:18 a.m. she began her filibuster against Bill SB5, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This bill, if passed, would shut down all but 5 medical clinics in the entire state of Texas. These clinics do not only provide abortion services, but affordable health care for women, men, and children.
For those who don't know what a filibuster entails, it means she has to stand on the senate floor and talk for 13  straight hours and talk in order for the bill to not reach the governor's desk for him to sign. She is not allowed to stop, either. No breaks, no sitting down or resting, no eating, no drinking, no using the restroom, nothing but talking for the entire time. If she can talk continually till midnight, they cannot pass the bill.
Well, guess what? This superhero of a woman did it. Senator Davis, a single mother and a Harvard law alumn, asked people from all around the nation and the world to send in their abortion testimonies for her to share and to keep the filibuster going. If she was to stop once, she would be out and they could pass the bill.
Armed with a pair of bright pink Nike sneakers, she talked the entire time. Many of her male colleagues would not even pay attention to her. She was constantly nitpicked at the rules, especially when one of the senators helped her adjust her back brace, saying this was in violation of the rules.
BUT HERE'S THE KICKER: a fellow female senator pointed out that she did not sit or lean on anything as this was being done, and the rules were written in male pronouns, therefore they did not technically apply to her anyway! Talk about engrained misogyny.

Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D) (right), also is a woman of note in this whole debacle. She tried her best to make Davis' filibuster count, adding countless support to the cause and in order to extend the filibuster. Most of her male colleagues elected to ignore her as well, in which she responded with the following:

At what point must a female senator raise her hand, or her voice, to be heard over the male colleagues in the room?

You go Senator Van de Putte. You go.

Davis' talk was broadcasted live the entire time, journalists keeping people updated every step of the way.
Then, as she neared the end of the final hour, she was silenced. They claimed she was in violation of the guidelines, mentioning sonograms which were considered "irrelevant" to the topic (which actually isn't irrelevant at all).
She continued to stand, and as soon as they tried to silence her, the people in the gallery screamed.
They could not be silenced. They continued the filibuster themselves.

This is what the gallery sounded like in the last 10 minutes of the filibuster:


When the people refused to move, Representative Mary Gonzales tweeted a picture of a bunch of state troopers coming in to arrest the civil disobedience. Unfortunately, the GOP representatives that supports the bill then decided that the ruckus "interfered with their vote" and they voted AFTER MIDNIGHT, which is in direct violation of their regulation.

Basically, they broke a law to make a law.

During the filibuster:"Oh, sorry Ms. Davis. You have to follow these strict guidelines for your filibuster. Rules are rules."
When they decide to vote after midnight: "Wait, what are rules again?"

The GOP actually changed the date on the books to reflect that the vote was made before midnight, instead of after. Someone caught it before they changed it. Oh boy, aren't you in trouble.

BUT, IN AN AMAZING TURN OF EVENTS:

Our girl Wendy did it! She represents thousands of Texan women and her passion and bravery paid off!

However, this is not the end. What to take away from this incident is this: the government will not hesitate to forward their own agenda by any means necessary, even if that means breaking laws already in place.

They have ignited something they cannot stop.

Change is coming, folks. Especially with several other bills in place, such as the vote on Prop 8 in California, the DOMA equal marriage act, and SCOTUS also passing today a law allowing restrictions on voting based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. In other words, they just flung us back into some of the darkest parts of our past. 

I leave you with this. Get pumped, revolution is on it's way.

Fight the patriarchy.

Till next time xx,

Sierra