So far there hasn't been much ,discussion regarding the original question, - what really IS the deal with ignoring capitalization, punctuation, reasonable grammar, correct word-usage and spell-check? The deal is that it's a social statement, a form of rebellion, that has become the current slang or idiom among an increasingly large number of people expressing themselves in text. Personally, I think it's a bad thing because I believe It eliminates some useful tools of expression and severely limits the options people have for introducing nuance and precision into what they're trying to say.
I find it instructive to see how we got here from the days almost 3/4 of a century ago when elementary school systems still taught rigorous grammar and spelling as basic skills (do they still or is it simply being ignored?).
By the 1950s and 1960s the job of getting the overwhelming majority of Armican society to achieve basic literacy had largely been accomplished. As a result it became fashionable, starting in the better suburbs in America, for schools to eliminate the distinction between those students who, either through social or genetic good fortune, were better adapted to learning, and those who were less so. It was a distinction that was thought to be (and often was) fundamentally elitist and undemocratic. Eventually education became restructured around this notion. Many outcomes occurred, one of which was the emphasis on narrow specialization in the skills we use to get through life. Education became increasingly vocationally oriented.
Those who were gifted in the areas needed to evolve the technologies of our society, notably computation and communication technologies, often found themselves to be less interested , and sometimes less capable, in the "humanities". This included spelling, grammar, and the basics of good writing. Starting with the "sputnik generation" they were encouraged to focus on the areas they were best at and largely ignore the rest. As time and generations moved forward the other areas simply fell away.
Meanwhile the more learning challenged were encouraged to find employment better adapted to what was rapidly becoming a systematically under-educated class; employment that didn't require the skills they found more challenging to acquire, and which, quite often, they were no longer being offered. Up until the last 20 years, in many cases they were well enough compensated that these educational deficiencies really didn't matter. That expanding under-class was the "market" for the technocracy.
The intersection between the original concept of educational "democratization", really educational populism, and a technocratic class that is increasingly specialized has resulted in forms of communications that are best adapted to a lowest-common-denominator approach to both design and content. Think about auto-fill, for example, or spell-checkers and the problem of homonyms (words with different meanings and gramatical function but which sound the same), or the tiny restricted virtual keyboards on the screens of cell phones. All this reenforces a dumbing down of communication and a radical simplification of content.
The outcome is formalization and repetition. Eventually it changes the way we are able to think as we lose the mental tools to do otherwise. Ultimately we feel threatened by those that may still tolerate, or even demand, more complexity in the things they say and the manner in which they say it. They constitute an elite class and are to be resisted. What better way than unstructured, unpunctuated, and phonetically ad-hoc paragraphs?
Edited by Bernard Kron, 26 August 2013 - 09:28 AM.