Yesterday was one of those Twitter Days.  I criticized someone on the platform who had left an empty extreme-right tweet and, of course, got bombarded by scathing, venomous replies. And by "bombarded" I mean that for the next several hours there were probably a few hundred, along with many hundreds more retweets of the slams.

I didn't read most of them, of course, nor did I reply to many.  However, I did see a whole lot, and responded to, if not "many," then too many -- after which I'd say a polite "Goodbye" and muted them (so they'd see what I wrote) to be later blocked.

I noticed a few things about the replies as a general rule -- 1) They like calling you funny names because apparently "Rupert" or "Roger" or "Rodent" or "Relishberg" is considered damning in their world, 2) they like sending graphics instead of actually thinking of something to say, and 3) they really like making smarmy replies that don't address any specifics of the actual criticism.

(Occasionally I'd reply to a tweet and say that my name wasn't "Rupert," but actually was Brandon.)

​One person linked to the WGA and said that one of their most prominent members was a total idiot who didn't understand anything.  I wrote back and thanked the person for calling me a "prominent member" of the Writers Guild.

Personal attacks about being bald were also big, though that's par for the course.  I've long had a couple of standard responses, and if there's room, often use them together.  I generally tell people that each of us are given only so many genes, and if you want to use yours for growing hair, that's your choice. Also, Shakespeare, Churchill and Gandhi were bald. Hitler had hair.

A particular odd, repeated "attack" (and putting that in quotes in the only way I can do it justice) was all the people slamming me for apparently having a waterbed.  Not only that, but for buying it on a credit card at an incredibly high APR.  I don't know, don't ask, apparently this is an extreme right "thing."  The only thing I can say is that it was not as damning as they thought it was.  Although they all seemed to get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

What also stood out is that a great many people told me off because they said the guy leaving the original tweet had a satire account -- while as many people told me off because I dared criticize something they took very seriously.

(Side note: someone wrote to tell me that they'd criticized something from this account, and they'd been immediately swarmed on with vicious, crude attacks.  He then added -- "These are not nice people."  I replied:  "It has come to my attention."

I should note that I checked the account, and there was very little "satire" on it.  I write satire and parody professionally, and have a respectable eye for such things, and man, the cupboard there was bare.  If that was what some considered "satire," they've set their bar very low.  The most "satire" I could find with a microscope was in the guy's bio, where he called himself a "living legend youth football coach" in Georgia.  I got the joke.  It was hard to miss, because it stood alone in a satire desert.

But as I explained in several of my replies to those who chided me ("Chided me" is the polite term, since it was more like calling me a stupid, incompetent, ignorant idiot) for apparently missing the "satire," there was a huge flaw in their chastising me.  I said that for the sake of argument let's accept for the moment that it was indeed a satire account.  That means if someone believes the original tweet in question was satire, one of two things had to be true --

1. That you don't think he actually meant what he wrote at all, but the opposite, which means you agree with my criticism of it, and so the only thing that I was foolish about was, not my criticism, but for not getting the satire.  Fair enough, that's then what you'd say --  rather than also slam me for being wrong.  Or if not that, then --

2.  You think the point the original writer was absolutely, spot-on correct, and the "satire" was only that he exaggerated -- which means my criticism holds.

But of course, that brings us to the "I was just joking" gambit.  This has become the Republican defense of choice since Trump.  Say something horrible, thoughtless and cruel - and then when criticized, run away and hide after insisting "I was just joking."  And try to make the other person at fault for not getting what wasn't a joke in the first place.  (By the way, jokes can be horrible, thoughtless and cruel.  There are bad jokes.)

I never mind being disagreed with.  Further, when I'm wrong I like to be corrected.  In fact, later in the day I received a tweet on a totally different subject that explained I'd replied to a note that had some incorrect information about a battery plant to be built in Georgia.  I deleted my reply and wrote a new one.  But -- when whoever disagrees with me (or with anyone) doesn't say what was "wrong," it means they have nothing.  They just don't like that you criticized something they want to believe is true, but have no argument to correct you.  And further, having no argument, the person is left with making ad hominem attacks, trying to think of a slam that, because of their own insecurities, they believe will be seen as mean. 

Ah, well, that's life on Twitter these days.  To be fair, I had similar exchanges pre-Musk.  Though today's outburst was more pronounced.  

The barrage continued throughout the day, but slowed later in the day.  It's just an occasional drip at this point.  But I'm sure replies will pop up from time to time.

Or to put it in the words a Fox "News" viewer might grasp -

We report, you deride.

I don't know how many people on these pages subscribe to Twitter and post there.  But I'm sure most are at least aware of the situation, if not all the problematic details there since Elon Musk bought the service.  It's not convoluted to go into them all, though annoyingly long.  However, occasionally a tweet comes along to put at least some of it in perspective.

Which brings us to a tweet Musk posted yesterday.

Side Note:  If I was an investor in a company like, say, oh, Tesla, and the owner was tweeting as much as Elon Musk does -- and he tweets A LOT, often about inane arcana, (How arcane and inane?  The other day Elon Musk tweeted a response to me about a criticism I had had made!  It was a cartoon that basically suggested everything Musk did was evil) -- I'd be very bothered.  Especially if the company's stock had plummeted the previous year.  By the way, I don't think everything Elon Dusk does is evil.  I just think a lot of what he does is wrong-headed, some of it disingenuous, infantile and with a deep thin-skinned persecution complex, and only occasionally evil.  Though "occasionally evil" is a pretty poor record.  And I should add that my description of a "deep thin-skinned persecution complex" doesn't come from viewing just a bunch of thin-skinned tweets, but reading many news stories about him taking vindictive action against employees who did something he didn't like.  And kicking journalists off Twitter who reported on things about him he didn't like.  For instance, my own tweet that brought his response concerned him publicly humiliating a disabled employee who Musk thought didn't work hard enough and then fired.  He later sort of "half-apologized" when he was not only widely slammed, but also learned that the employee was actually a major expert in the field and incredibly valuable to the company.  Musk offered the job back, though the former valuable employee hasn't decided yet.  But I digress...

​Anyway, what he posted was --

That's Musk's big, supposed soap box.  Truth and free speech!!!

The problem is that if what he says above was even remotely true, he wouldn't officially allow known misinformation on Twitter.  Which he does for postings about COVID, but far more than just that.  And such misinformation isn't just wrong, but dangerous.

Further, as the owner who oversees and controls everything on the Twitter platforms, setting the rules and how they're enacted, if being "impartial" and "favoring no party" was the standard, he wouldn't post a tweet telling everyone that they should only vote for Republicans.  All Republicans.  In every race.

Putting aside that that doesn't seem very impartial, especially without explaining why, Musk is certainly entitled to his opinion.  And if that opinion is "Vote Republican, all Republican, all the time," so be it -- but when you're the judge and umpire and creator of the rules, you do take on added responsibilities.  And if you choose to voice your views while in the position as jump, umpire and creator of the rules, who can determine who is allowed on the platform, that is the hypocritical antithesis of "fair".

The thing is, when Musk says things like this (and he does often), he must take everyone as saps, who'll believe anything.  Unfortunately, he seems to have spent too much time around today's Republicans and thinks that attribute flows everywhere.

By the way, Musk's tweet above came as a reply to one of his own.  That was another disingenuous one where he wrote, "Fight for truth, whole truth & nothin but!​"

And of course, if he actually wanted people to fight for the whole truth and NOTHING BUT...he wouldn't make an official policy allowing known misinformation to be posted.

Further, as for truth, Musk said he would resign if that's what a poll he put up showed.  And that turns out to be what the poll showed.  But it should come as no shock that Musk did not resign.  He found an excuse by claiming that bots were used which manipulated the results unfairly.  (Gee, election fraud, go figure.)  Now, that might have been true, but he provided no evidence.  And bot may have manipulated results for him, a well.  Moreover, if that was now the Musk Standard, it's worth noting that his earlier poll to "Let the people speak!" that ended up allowing Trump back on Twitter was most likely also manipulated by bots -- in Trump's favor, it seems reasonable to think, given the Russian bot farms we know about -- but Musk didn't dismiss those results.  Nor has he offered a new poll about himself with bot security protections built in.

The short version of this is that "free speech, truth and nothing but!!" make for a great bumper sticker but don't enter into the actual world of Elon Musk.

Or put another way, Elon Musk should spare us all his faux sanctimony.

The other day, every Republican on the House "Oversight" Committee -- all 26 members -- would not sign a two-sentence statement proposed by Jamie Raskin that denounced white supremacy.  The main reason behind Raskin offering the statement, he said, was because the “great replacement theory” of white supremacists has grown violent, indeed people have been killed because of it.  And every single Republican on the committee wasn’t bothered enough by the hatred, violence and death to denounce it.

In most circles, this is considered a layup.  One of those easy questions you can't lose by answering in simple, "Well, yes, of course!" support.  Not much more difficult than, "Senator, are you for or against puppies?"  But every Republican whiffed and refused.  The entire Republican contingent on the committee would not denounce white supremacists.
 
You can't dance around that or try to explain it away.  This wasn’t about free speech, cancel culture or “wokeness” – nor was it about anything related to personal choice, or any way you want to twist it.  This was about elected members of the U.S. Congress being asked to denounce the virulent hatred of white supremacists – which includes neo-Nazis – who have become emboldened in the country, building to the point of people dying, in an effort to make clear to such hate groups that their violent malevolence and venal cries of “replacement” is anathema to what the United States stands for and together work to stop it.
 
And not one Republican out of 26 would denounce it.  You can’t whisk that away however convoluted your attempt.
 
But then, this is today's GOP.
 
Making this all the more pointed was a seemingly-unrelated action by the committee which can only be seen for how, in fact, it overlaps.
 
That’s when later in the day, Republicans on this House "Oversight" Committee announced that they will be visiting Jan. 6 criminals who are in jail. These are the very same GOP members who all refused a statement denouncing white supremacists.  The best I can figure is that they want to visit prison just to tell their base the news in person.
 
In a normal world, all that about Republicans on the House “Oversight” Committee would be the full story – because it’s a pretty full banquet all on its own.  But, of course, we live in a world with social media. 
 
When I initially saw the story about all 26 Republicans on the “Oversight” Committee not denouncing white supremacists, I posted the fact on Twitter.  It should not come as a shock how venal some of the response was to give an indication the “Oversight” Committee view reflected the party as a whole.

Because, after all, this is today’s GOP.
 
(And lest anyone think I'm being biased in saying this, just know that this morning -- right before posting this -- I received a tweet from "Aletheia" in support that said, in part:  "Wow, the vermin that crawl out of the woodwork to challenge your very respectable and reasoned posts gives me pause to believe that we're anywhere close to removing the MAGA influence from our midst.")
 
To be clear, a group of tweets, regardless how large or small is not evidence of the party as a whole.  But it’s certainly a good starting point to view some of the party, especially given how crass it was and how non-existent there was of Republican criticism about the unanimous GOP House action.  This is not all I got, or necessarily the worst.  Just some of the tweets that I saved before blocking them.
 
For instance, there was the response from “Michael” who, putting aside that there was zero truth to his bizarre effort, lashed out with --
 
“Democrats won't denounce pedophiles, drug cartels, traffickers, smugglers, drag queens, black supremacy, female supremacy, gay supremacy, trans supremacy, non-citizens committing crimes, drug abuse, the two billion in damages from BLM / Antifa, infanticide”.
 
Okay, in fairness, no, Democrats won’t denounce drag queens (which should be a relief to Dame Edna), nor Antifa, which is fighting against fascism.  And it’s a shame, too, that too saying Black Lives Matter is seen as something to be denounced, but then that’s today’s GOP.  That aside, though, what a woeful defense of the House Republican committee’s refusal to denounce white supremacism.
 
Then there was “John Kovalchuck” who at least was willing to go full anti-Semitic when he replied – “They should have signed a statement that denounced Jewish supremacy.”  And while I’m sure he believed his words, they don’t really go very far in refusing to denounce white supremacy.
 
On the other hand, “Christi” thought it was a scathing defense of GOP refusal to denounce white supremacism by saying – “Next he should see if they will denounce unicorns and orcs.”  Which would have been a winning slam if Jamie Raskin’s goal was to go after mythical creatures – and if he thought unicorns were evil and killed people.
 
“Glenn leader” seemed to think that flipping the attack around would fool people when he replied, “That's election denier Jamie Raskin to you!”  But I suspect he forgot that when talking to people outside the Fox “News” bubble, they actually follow the news, which makes his defense of white supremacism sort of stupid.
 
There also was the fellow who just decided to go “all ad hominin” and think that saying, “Since you’re old as f*ck, you won’t have to be around long to worry about this” was a good defense of House “Oversight” Republicans refusing to denounce white supremacy.
 
Finally, I have to admit, the baseball fan in me thought it was great to hear from former Major Leaguer Lenny Dykstra, who began his career on the New York Mets.  He wrote cryptically, “Maybe they see right though [sic] Jamie Raskin’s krassensteining?”  (I had to look that up.  It turns out that the Krassensteins are brothers who were harsh critics of Trump and later banned from Twitter, though they’re back on the service.  Still, I’m not 100% sure what Mr. Dykstra means – though in fairness, I’m not sure that he does either.  And I must clarify:  my pleasure at hearing this from Lenny Dykstra wasn’t because I like being cryptically criticized, but rather it was great to confirm that this member of the hated Satan’s Team lived down to his reputation, as best-described on the respected Bleacher Report website when the rated him the #9 biggest “sleazeball” ballplayer in Major League history.  In fact, they even put him in the title of the article.  “Lenny Dykstra and the 25 Biggest ‘Sleazeballs’ in MLB History.”
 
(And no, I’m not kidding, the article is here.)

Quite a few other replies tried to explain away the GOP refusal to denounce white supremacists as just a political trick.  If so, it's was an incredibly easy trick to participate in, along the lines of playing peek-a-boo with a baby.  Getting someone on the record to denounce white supremacy (whether it's a "trick" or a statement of national wellness) is the kind of thing that has no downside.  None.  Unless, perhaps, it's the base of your party.

Again, the responses I got on social media are not proof of anything.  But then, they’re not intended to be.  It’s just to show one part of today’s GOP that sits in white supremacist support of all 26 Republicans on the House “Oversight” Committee, each of whom refused to denounce the white supremacy, emboldened by such silence and tacit approval.
 
But then, that’s today’s GOP.  Venal, virulent, racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic and woefully uninformed.  I am sure there are many good, even wonderful people in the party.  And each one of them in their silence are enabling the rest.
 
And no matter how convoluted your attempt, you can’t twist it into knots and make it go away.

​In recent days, Adam Schiff has mentioned he’s considering a Senate run in 2024 when Dianne Feinstein retires.  Schiff and Eric Swalwell were both considering a run in 2018 but Feinstein upended all plans where (unfortunately) she decided to run for one more term, and so everyone else dropped out.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Swalwell considers a Senate run again – and maybe even Gavin Newsom, though he’d likely wait to see if President Biden decides to run again or not.  And for all I know Katie Porter might consider a Senate run (in part because she’s talented and popular throughout the blue state, but also in part because, unlike most of California, she’s in a purple district and has a tough run every year.)

[UPDATE: Hours after writing the above, Katie Porter announced her run for the Senate.]
 
I bring all this up for a different reason, though.
 
When the story broke, Dinesh D’Souza posted a tweet that said, “He’s a joke.”  Not the most substantive response to be sure, but at least one didn’t have to waste much time reading it.  Of course, the funniest thing about his tweet calling someone else a joke is that it came from a guy man convicted of a felony and given a pardon by the twice-impeached president currently under at least five federal and state investigations.
 
But I bring this all up for yet a different reason.
 
It’s that in response to D’Souza’s tweet came a string of agreements from loyal acolytes who got the Schiff Memo long ago, and said things about Rep. Schiff like, “He should be in prison a very long time ago.” And “He should be going to jail.”  And “Running before he’s thrown out.  Still need to indict for JAN 6.”  (I haven’t quite figured that one out yet.)   “I hope he leaves in handcuffs.”  “He can run and leave his spot, but justice will come for him, and has a better shot of holding a seat in jail.”  And “It is going to be a hot, messy Schiff show when he goes to trial.”  And…well, okay, you get the point.  The extreme-right, crazy MAGAs think Adam Schiff should be in jail.
 
I get it.  Well, up to a point.  I get that those so far on the right-wing fringe they’re at risk of falling off the edge thing Adam Schiff should be in jail.  I’m just not sure why they think this.  I think it has something to do with him saying something as an exaggeration during Trump’s second impeachment trial that, as a paraphrased exaggeration to make a point, it wasn’t actually factual.  But if so, exaggerating is not yet considering a federal crime.  Or a state crime.  Or even a faux-pas.  At worst, it’s a cousin to a malaprop.  But what Schiff said wasn’t even that.  It was an exaggeration for context.
 
At least, I think that’s what has their shorts bunched up.  Since none of these people ever seem to say what particular crime Adam Schiff has committed for which he should be in prison, it’s hard to be sure.  (And this doesn’t include the guy who thinks Rep. Schiff should be indicted for something on January 6, for which I not only don’t have an idea what it is or could be, I’m not sure the guy does either.  It just seems to sound damning to those who don’t attempt to think.)

And then today comes the news that Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who was a House leader of the Insurrection, and last month voted against a bill to protect child sex abuse victims and whose own family said he should be removed from Congress, said that Dr. Jill Biden should be investigated for no known reason.  Yes, honest.

I love vibrant political debate. But I'm past debating things like if Adam Schiff should be in jail or that Jill Biden should be investigated. 
 
There seems to be an ongoing belief on the extreme right that if you don’t agree with them you are a traitor or a socialist Commie or shouldn’t be allowed to vote or should be put in jail.  Or any combination of all four.  It is no doubt a shock to many on the extreme right when they discover this perception of their world doesn’t mesh with reality.  When someone has a different opinion from  you, that isn't actually considered a legal crime -- even if you also have a blinding, unthinking hatred for the person.  The charm of fascist delusion, wanting to jail those you don't like who are different, has worn off.
 
A big complaint of many Republicans is that they hate “the libs” for being arrogant elitists who look down at Republicans as stupid.  What I always want to say in return is that when your party's base is near-united in truly, actually, honestly believing that Adam Schiff should be in prison because he exaggerated, you only serve to give liberals -- and sane people -- evidence that supports their claims.
 
The problem is that it’s impossible to criticize every lunatic charge by Republicans, it’s like trying to catch a swarm of bees, one by one.
 
And yes, I mean “lunatic charge."  Just as one more example, also yesterday (it could be almost any day, so going back only one day for all these examples is the easiest way to fly) I came across a posting on social media by someone who goes by the handle “RealSCAREY” (and that’s another giveaway, when people go on rants but won’t use their actual names) and posted the following.  I'm embedding the actual tweet for those who might be skeptical.  

Over the weekend, actress Valerie Bertinelli decided to show how ludicrous the new “Twitter Blue” verification policy was.  And so, she changed her screen name to “Elon Musk” and tweeted out about a dozen messages, many of them in support of Democratic candidates.  She then changed her name back.
 
I was curious how Elon Musk reacted, so I went to his feed.  It was not pretty.  My intention was just to check out if he had a response, and my post a reply.  But what he wrote on the subject and so much of the other criticism was just jaw-droppingly bad.  It was sort of like forming a comedy duo act, and he decided to be the straight man.  Tweet after tweet after tweet after tweet.
 
I kept thinking, “Okay, that’s it.”  But then I’d read the next one.  And then think, “Okay, I can’t not comment on that.”
 
Here’s how I spent about a half-hour last night --
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Twitter needs to become by far the most accurate source of information about the world. That’s our mission.
 
R.J.E.:
Well, y'know, getting rid of the Identity Verification protocol was a *Really Bad* way to start going about this.  By the way, you did a nice job in "One Day at a Time."
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk.
 
R.J.E.:
What about someone else's direct personal safety risk? (Like, say, where people tweet that someone deserves to die.) Are you committed to *that*??
 
Or to the safety of democracy? As in "spreading misinformation to help destroy people's trust in institutions."
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Power to the People
 
R.J.E.:
Like no voter suppression!

And no laws that discriminate against anyone, regardless of race or gender!

And laws that require corporations pay fair taxes, like The People!

And a woman's right to choose for HER life!

And no book banning!

And teaching the truth of slavery!

Right on!
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning. This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.
 
R.J.E.:
This sounds a little like a line from the commandant in "The Great Escape."
 
BTW, what if one has not signed up for $100/year "Twitter Blue" and therefore not received the "warning?"  Will they get suspended even though they weren’t warned?
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended
 
R.J.E.:
You seem a bit touchy.


Define "parody." How does it differ from "mocking"? Or "social protest"?

P.S. Are you aware that when you tell a joke but say, "OK, this is going to be a joke, it's funny" it generally ruins the joke.

Ohh, I get it. This is "free speech." With limits.
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Any name change at all will cause temporary loss of verified checkmark
 
R.J.E.:
This is an added burden for women who get married and change their name.

And Kanye West a couple times a year.
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Trash me all day, but it’ll cost $8
 
R.J.E.:
It will cost $8 to criticize someone now on Twitter?? Or just if you are criticized.

Is that $8 per criticism, or will it cover criticizing you for a full month?

Free speech seems to be getting more expensive by the day.
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Again, to be crystal clear, Twitter’s strong commitment to content moderation remains absolutely unchanged. In fact, we have actually seen hateful speech at times this week decline *below* our prior norms, contrary to what you may read in the press.
 
 
 
R.J.E.:
And your whitewashing note is contrary to what I see on my actual feed.

We have totally different definitions of "crystal clear" and "commitment."   I believe mine are more accurate. Though, to be crystal clear, I'm biased.
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Regarding Twitter’s reduction in force, unfortunately there is no choice when the company is losing over $4M/day. Everyone exited was offered 3 months of severance, which is 50% more than legally required.
 
R.J.E.:
No one forced YOU to vastly overpay $44 BILLION for Twitter. So, that was a choice.

And you chose to change policies about verification & making hate speech more accessible, driving away advertising.

Cool, so it was "You're fired, instead of 2 weeks severance, here's 3 weeks."
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Excellent summary of Twitter’s Trust & Safety from the head of the team.  [He then attached a statement from the head of the team.]
 
R.J.E.:
”As proof that all our new policies are GREAT, our new company official who I hired to install them will now tell explain the new policies are GREAT!!"
 
 
 
ELON MUSK:
Followed by creator monetization for all forms of content
 
R.J.E.:
Is this from you or Valerie Bertinelli?

​What Twitter needs is (like YouTube) a Thumbs-down icon. Without one, if you disagree with a tweet, the only option is to tell someone off, often angrily. And that's gets responded to. And things blow up. But a Thumbs-down icon could be clicked, and you move on. It won't solve anything, there still would be a lot of anger vented, but I think it would lessen *some* of it and help.

Facebook could use that, too, though Twitter mostly because with its character limit it seem more centered on quick, snap replies.