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.
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
Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
|