'Times' Editor's Request To Not Use 'Tweet' Still Not a Ban?


Hey, have you ever worked in a job? Maybe you have! (Lucky dog.) And when you have worked in that job, when someone up the ladder from you tells you to not do something, except on special occasions, don’t you agree to not do it? Correct! Why would you antagonize the executive class? So you know, Times standards editor Phil Corbett is disputing that he “banned” the word “Tweet” from the Times. To be fair, “ban” is a broad word for his-what’s okay to say?-”shaming request”? “Not quite demand”? “Not-an-order-but-what-else-is-it”? Whatever gradations you want to put on this proposition are too Byzantine and complicated for me. Now, all that being said? I’m still not on the side of the people who think the Times is stupid in their quest to not use the word “Tweet.” Take it away, Tom Scocca: “What’s infuriating about all this modesty is that ‘Tweet’ deserves to be banned, for precisely the reasons Corbett says it does: it is a colloquialism, a neologism, and a piece of jargon. It is a stupid, unnecessary, trivial word, and it makes the writing in which it appears seem stupid and trivial.” Also, still not future-proof!