I spend more time on Twitter than I should, since it’s become so abusive, hate-filled, racist and fascist-enabling. But I do participate for several reasons, some for my own benefit (like promoting my articles), but also because I think it’s important to respond to disinformation.
I should note that the reason I respond is not to convince my correspondent of anything. I know full well that’s a fantasy lost cause. The sort of thing where, if the person does get convinced, it’s a surprise bonus, not a trend. No, the reason I reply is to inform others reading the disinformation so they can see reality presented and explained. But there are limits. And we’re reaching those limits. To be clear, by “reaching those limits” doesn’t mean I’ll stop responding, but rather how I respond. I began this new effort several months back. It’s a process, and has taken several paths to "reach the limit." The first path was putting aside my reticence to block people until they crossed the line of decency. Now, the line of demarcation is more like, “Who needs this??!” Anything abusive, any infantile name-calling that isn’t just directed at me (the previous standard) but at pretty much anyone, anything that shows they’re reveling in their ignorance of reality and more, things like that. I might say “Goodbye,” click, block, done – but sometimes “Who needs this??!” kicks in, and the block is immediate. I should add that among those I’ve blocked is Elon Musk. Because he has such a huge reader base, I’d often felt compelled to respond to his disinformation or egregious ignorance or racism. But because I was getting so many of his tweets in my timeline, I finally had enough and blocked him. It made my life oh-so much more comforting. And because others on my time line respond to him and so his comments occasionally show up for me to see, I can respond to those, if the spirit moves me, knowing he’s blocked. Though usually I let them pass since – because they’re appearing on my time line that way – it means others have responded to him, and responded very well. The next path was creating several default responses that I just copy and paste. They’re different, because they have to fit different situations, but there are two core saved-response that I use as a starting point. The first, that’s more explanatory, which I use if I feel that others reading it might be deserving of the explanation is – “I'm always happy to debate opinions. But I won't debate facts & reality, and your choice to ignore them is established. While it appears you get ‘talking points’ from sources that chose to misinform, it's on you for accepting that just because it fits what you wish was true. Bye.” But sometimes I just go for blunt, and respond – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” These, and the adaptations, have served me well. But that brings us to now. And MAGOP World has begun to take on many of the attributes of Trump. Meaning that members of the MAGOP base now have gotten to where the lie is not just the starting point, but the point. And then feed on one another passing along the lie. And when confronted with reality and the lie and with links to established news stories confirming the lie just scream and send GIFs and memes that shout some version of “You lie!!!!!” It's become pernicious and egregious and -- perhaps worse than even that, which is saying a lot -- almost standard. Mind you, I don’t know if they even know they’re lying – and it doesn’t matter because they not only believe it to be true (or more to the point, gospel) and nothing will convince them otherwise, and pass the lie along. Some -- many, perhaps -- may also know they're lying, but don’t care since it supports what they wish to be true. Further, though, this has morphed with a long-standing MAGOP tactic: when presented with evidence of the lie, they shift into “But what about…??!” mode. Tangentially staying on the general topic, but moving to an issue not being discussed. I had such an exchange yesterday. The attack on President Biden brought up that concerned the Strategic Petroleum Reserved. Putting aside that the attack was based on a lie made by Trump in 2023, and all the subsequent “points” were built on that lie and untrue, the attempted aim was to show that this one untrue issue about something worth discussion but utterly meaningless to most Americans supposedly (even if it was true, which it wasn’t) offset everything fascist and criminal about Trump, starting with trying to overthrow the government of the United States. I explained the lie, and linked to a detailed article on the subject. This brought out several attempts by others to repeat the lie, to which I simply referred them to the same article, and the contorted into the obligatory “But what about…??!” new topic. I had enough. And my new response, which I expect now to use a similar version of in similar situations was – “The premise and points in the original tweet were from a Trump lie in 2023. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole chasing "what about" whack-a-mole issues from those defending an Insurrectionist who says he wants to be a dictator, undo the Constitution and who was found liable for rape.” And then blocked the person. Enough. Not “enough” that I won’t respond any further. I will. As I said, I’m responding for the “others” reading the exchange who can be convinced by hopefully well-explained reality. But enough so that once the explanation is made, that is the limit. No more heading down rabbit holes, no more playing whack-a-mole. Now, instead, pointing out the large, far more reality – that the person trying to make this meaningless point with a lie or disinformation is missing, not the forest for the trees, but the mountain range for the pebble. And explain to the others reading it that this person is making his or her case (whether an egregious lie or a valid, insignificant thought) in order to help enable an out-of-control fascist who tried to overthrow the government, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to throw out parts of the Constitution, and has been found liable twice by a jury of the equivalence of rape. As a starting point. Now, knowing me, I’m sure I’ll forget and occasionally respond as before. But I also know that, since we’ve passed the limit and reached “enough,” that muscle memory will kick in, and I’ll calmingly reach into my treasure chest and reply – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” Well, either that or more pithy: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|