This time it was because I linked to a post on the satirical Eccles blog which I found amusing and a propos.
However, apparently to link to that post means that I endorse everything Eccles has ever written, and also everything the loons who inhabit the combox there have ever written.
That is curious, as that is not the normal understanding on Twitter, but there we go.
Moreover, apparently this very post contains insults so subtle and devious that only those who are the target of them can see them, so it was very wrong of me to link to it.
Others joined in the condemnation; and it is fair to point out that I was not the only person being 'called out' for this crime. Some kind people also joined in to support me.
Reflecting on this, and other bits and bobs, I realise that I am not doing this blogging and tweeting stuff properly:
I am not part of a tribe, applauding my own and always seeking to point out the defects of 'them.'
When I've disagreed with someone, I don't feel the need to insult them and everyone who associates with them.
I do not trawl the posts and tweets of those I dislike, looking for something I can interpret to mean that they are mad or bad, and broadcast it to all and sundry.
I do not take and keep screenshots of offensive, potentially offensive, or indeed any other Twitter conversations to post later as 'evidence' of something or other.
I do not even read the posts of bloggers I admire with any great regularity.
My attitude to many of those I read is that they are sometimes interesting and sometimes not - and in some case sometimes completely nutty (Fr Z would be a case in point: I used to find his Latin translation posts very interesting; but his views on guns are quite beyond me, and his intemperate remarks on homosexuals I have commented on previously as profoundly misguided.)
I rarely read combox comments, particularly of unmoderated comboxes, as they are normally nuttier than nougat and frequently distinctly unpleasant.
I don't join in the yells of outrage when someone says something particularly nutty.
In short, I am not taking it seriously enough. I crave your indulgence.
.jpg)
3 comments:
I have to say I find the whole concept of Twitter narcissistic in the extreme; to expect the politeness of a dinner party exchange, naive; the readiness to be upset/offended, tedious.
IMO it's the digital equivalent of shooting your mouth off in the playground.
Who cares? Does it bring added value to the world? It must be my age . . .
Good points! I got involved last time over Fr. Z.'s remarks on homosexuals...it was absurd. He, I, and others didn't deserve the vitriol. As to guns, I agree with him. It is an American thing for one, and people shouldn't criticize him for it. You were fair and kind...others, not so much. On his politics: the polemics get a bit annoying, but honestly, I found on some issues e.g. Islam that his readers are right.
I also can't fathom why insults are bad from Fr. Z. but not others.
Also, Damian Thompson is the instigator every time, and he usually makes a mountain out of a molehill.
Eccles is fictional, as Deacon Flavin tweeted. So why all the hurt? Additionally, I think Mac McLernon, Eccles, Caroline Farrow, and others are targeted for no reason. It is all in the critics' heads. Sorry for referencing the actual participants as of late...
Some nasty comments were left on my blog a few months ago, and were deleted the same day. I have also had threats against me left on my blog. Now I pre-moderate all comments.
Since I blocked some bullies and stalkers on Twitter - and changed my e-mail address - I am not directly aware of their continuing hate campaigns.
Finally, it should be obvious to all except the most stupid that the mabelgraph blog and @MissyPigator (and similar, worse accounts) are nothing to do with me.
Eccles
Post a Comment