When you begin every day intent on finding something to be aggrieved over, you're going to find something to be aggrieved over.

According to our friends at NPR, your keyboard, and the very alphabet on which it is based, is one way (among uncatalogued thousands more I'm sure) that people get marginalized.

In what ways does this happen? That's never made clear. The story makes no real mention of it and the audio interview it includes is mostly a fascinating look at the history of the alphabet as explained by author Judith Flanders of "A Place for Everything: A Curious History of Alphabetical Order."

Among the things I learned was how truly revolutionary, if not subversive, it was to sort things using a neutral measure rather than, say, a hierarchy, such as encyclopedias that used to begin with God and end with vegetables and minerals, or the Yale student listing that up until 1886 was ordered by the family's social status.

(I suspect in some ways, it still is.)

So where does the marginalization of PONAs (People Of No Alphabet, which I might have just made up) come in?

From the host, of course.

Here is an actual question asked of the author who just wanted to talk about her quirky little book:

"It sounds like this creates a sort of neutrality in ordering things, but I wonder is it true neutrality or just the illusion of equality or neutrality. Because there are many other factors that can come into play when we're figuring out whether people or things fit into a certain order?"

The author was having none of it. The best she could offer was that sociological studies have found that people whose names begin with the letter "A" are more successful than those whose names begin with the letter "W."

Probably not what she was looking for, although I would not be surprised to learn that a crack squad of NPR researchers are at this very moment trying to determine the racial makeup of people by alphabetical order.

Like Captain Ahab, the host continued on her fishing expedition, intent on finding something, anything. She came close when she asked about what the "implications" might be for people who don't use alphabetical languages such as the Chinese?

The implications are that there are keyboards for them, many already built into operating systems.

As implications go, that's not particularly worth mounting a national protest movement over.

This is why the comments to the tweet, which got good and ratioed, are worth a look, including one reader who noted that such accommodations were being made back when there were just typewriters, and another who said he had been typing in Chinese using a computer keyboard since 1985.

Did this stop our intrepid host?

Let's return for a moment to the original tweet which said:

"Keyboards are one way that these languages and the people who speak them get marginalized."

That's it. That right there is the sum total of research supporting what amounts to little more than an assertion and which is never really addressed again.

It works when nobody reads beyond the tweet. Including the editors.