Before I begin, let me just say I have a plethora of highly intelligent friends who utilize LOLs and TTYLs. There is nothing inherently evil in these condensed phrases. There's also nothing wrong with shortening "you" to "u" and "are" to "r", but the archaic part of me refuses to conform. I spell out every word when I text, and even use correct punctuation. Nonetheless, I admit that there are forums in which the shortening of phrases is efficient and appropriate.
The other day I stumbled upon a political debate taking place via the oh-so-appropriate venue, Facebook. Every other comment either started or ended its argument with the eloquent LOL. Really, sir, gay rights makes you laugh out loud? Taxes, too? I can't imagine how you would react to a picture of a dancing kitten. Would that justify a RLOL? (Raucous laugh out loud).
Intelligent conversation just does not go hand in hand with LOLs. It's a simple phrase, but manages to water-down anything being said. Let's look at the following example:
"Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." Versus: "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken lol."
I, for one, feel almost mocked by the second version.
Wait. We're laughing, now? Does that mean everyone else isn't taken? Or you think it's funny that everyone else is taken and I'm stuck with my sorry self?
When people attach lol to various statements, it makes the statement noncommittal. Ex: "I'm a democrat lol." Huh? You are a democrat? Or you're mocking democrats? What the whaaa...?
I hope I'm not making you overly-conscious of your use of lol. Let's remember: I'm an English Teacher and a 90-year-old at heart. So. There's that. But also, if we're ever in a debate and you really want to make an effective argument: please skip the acronyms (particularly--you guessed it--lol), or I will be forced to dismiss your validity.