X: Twitter in a Post Truth Age
I think it was when I was on holiday that I began to look at it more as I idled away hours. I was shocked to find a LOT of porn on it! -Not that I shied away that much ;-). Before long, I noticed a preoccupation with a handful of subjects: 'Getting rid of the Tories', 'The State of the Labour Party under Keir Starmer', 'Harry and Meghan' and, 'Trans Rights' etc.
I moved from 'Observer' to 'Occassional Commentator' but have rarely actually initiated a tweet. I got my first singe when I supported a post from @Pride challenging anti Trans arguments. I was immediately attacked with some eye-watering accusations that my agreement signalled my endorsement of Child Abuse and some insanity about Gay men being forced to learn cunnilingus!!! It was fascinnating to experience people trotting out what they thought were "Gotcha!" challenges rather than actually discussing the specific issue that was posted which was about transwomen being banned from competition swimming. I asked for sources to support claims made to prove transwomen have unfair advantages in angling. That unleashed quite amusing fury and I was accused of not bothering to 'google' it (which I had), whilst none of them offered any links.
The venom was initially startling, then interesting and ultimately depressing. I wanted to debate and share ideas, they wanted to score points with insults and, as one of them boasted about the number of their 'followers', that was clearly an added aim in the game. I am more than capable of accessing effective vitriol, but once I realised that was what my baiters wanted, I moved on.
There is a LARGE group of people supporting Harry and Meghan, which is great: it is good to see video of them not shown in UK media which challenge the British press narrative of the couple's allegedly failing relationship having made the clear error (!) of leaving UK. It is interesting to see them being feted in America whilst British media says the Americans are tired of them etc. BUT... their supporters can be as toxic as the British press! It doesn't seem possible for the suppporters to refrain from slagging off the rest of the Windsors at every opportunity to bolster their praise of H&M. It is a strange disconnect: the supporters talk all tweety-birds and daisies about H&M but are truly VILE in ways I doubt H&M would actually appreciate, about the rest of The Firm.
And then, of course there is Gaza. Hamas precipitated the current catastrophe with a terror attack by fighters who crossed the borders using paragliders and killed or took hostage over 1,400 Israeli civilians. In REVENGE, Israel has bombed Gaza, demanded one million Palestinians to evacuate, - without providing safe routes for them to do so and, have blockaded the area as well as switching off electricity and water. More than a thousand Palestinians, half of them children have been killed so far and Israel says it is planning a land offensive.
Israel is collectively punishing the people of Gaza for the actions of Hamas. Collective Punishment is a war crime. UK and European politicians repeat the refrain that "Israel has the right to defend itself.", which clearly means that Israel is allowed to commit war crimes. Israeli politicians have spoken about bombing Gaza back to the middle ages, bombing it to dust, and called the palestinians "Human Animals" which the kid of statement that invariably precedes and attempts to justify genocide. Keir Starmer used the mantra for the first week or so, he has now almost grudgingly accepted that Israel should not proceed with actions likely to cause significant civilian casualties. I feel this has only happened because there has been widespread condemnation of him NOT calling out both sides to halt to save cvilians. When Russia cut power and water to Ukraine, Europe etc immediately called it out as a war crime, but they will not make the same connection even when challenged directly, for the people of Gaza. The image it creates is that Europe and co do not see the Palestinians as human beings in the same way that Ukrainians are...
Jeremy Corbyn immediately called out the violence, -ALL of it, but because he would not be drawn into a condemnation of Hamas for starting this current round of the ongoing resistence to the military occupation of Palestine by Israel, there have been the usual attempts to paint him as sympathising with Hamas. The "Israel has a right to defend itself" mantra has further divided UK. The Home Secretary (a Black woman despised by most as actually evil) has stoked things further by making waving a Palestinian flag an arrestable offence along with open public support of Hamas. -This was a week after warning of "A hurricane" of refugees heading for Britain at the Tory party conference.
...It is sad that the world is so divided on so many levels! People adopt positions which they defend with passion, sharing alternative views, and actively avoiding sources of information that might challenge them. People use whatever platform they have to make often outrageous statements that they probably don't really believe, but the game is about the amout of outrage that can be generated and, does it contribute to their personal 'brand'? There are so many examples: like calling Jeremy Corbyn "racist" or "a commie"; by the time any research/light Googling is done, the idea has spread like a seismic wave. Eventully the vibrations subside, but the landscape is forever changed by the number of people who believe what was said. That becomes the new "Truth". Statistics can show for example that the murder rate in America has fallen under its current president, but his opponents claim the country is increasingly lawless and violent, because that is what their supporters want to hear.
I will continue to resist the temptation to wade in on subjects on the app formerly known as 'Twitter'. I understand why people have spoken about its impact on their mental health.
Comments
Post a Comment