"I am of the opinion that our tung shold be written cleane and pure, vnmixt and vnmangeled with borrowing of other tunges" That was John Cheke in 1561. He's probably laughing at your awful spelling right now.
Like most prescriptivists, you're just completely ignorant to how the development of language occurs aren't you?
Although, text language is so common that I do notice and appreciate the rare occasion where someone goes to the effort to make sure their text is well written.
A lot of people use text language out of convenience and there is nothing wrong with that, however, It would be worrying if you didn't know the difference between "there, their and they're" or "to and too" etc...
Although, if children are using "shud" or "cud" in exams that would be worrying.
Not as long as there are people like me, who still use archaic words and are fascinated with the past. Just a few hours ago, I used the word 'equine' and 'notwithstanding'. People think such things posh; but they are part of the English language and we are in England/Britain after all.
I'd personally argue that Destruction of a language happens when it fails to progress.
The beauty of the English language is that it is ever evolving; i'm all for archaic linguistics but any lack of development does what it says on the tin. Colloquialism and Idiolect are such fascinating things that their dismissal is ignorant, somewhat elitist and stops progression of thought. (language is of-course our biggest former of a concept of 'reality')
Many people when they speak to me make fun of the way i talk,'bruv' 'sick' 'bro' but most of it is ironic and I'll run rings around them if i so wished- 'proper' English (whatever that may be) has a time and a place.