If you're not familiar with my latest suspension from Twitter, see here. I think it was because I used the pejorative 'retard'. They didn't say so, of course; you get some sanctimonious, overgeneralized bullshit over community guidelines (see my McAdams reference below), just an assertion a specific tweet violates them, and you need to delete the tweet before they'll start your suspension. But this is a known trigger word: Consider this excerpt from a 2017 post:
And this user was blocked possibly because of the word retard in two of his posts. The first time he used it for a game policy and the second in reply to another user who called him retarded.
>automatically get limited cause I said retard
At least one language police Twitter handle (Google search) takes on the 'R' word, claiming it occurs on social media every 5 seconds. You'll see that Ann Coulter got hammered for calling Obama one, a New York Giants football player got cut after using it, etc. Daniel McAdams notoriously got banned for tweeting military interventionist Sean Hannity "super retarded"
By limited/blocked/locked: basically what happened to me was I was notified my account was locked, but I knew before seeing the email because I had issues trying to refresh my Twitter page and went through the above protocol. So I think technically they would allow me to direct message my 8 followers. I think in the past I could tweet but only my followers could see them during the tenure, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of tweeting and getting your thoughts out there. I've gotten tens of thousands of impressions, while never having a following of even a hundred users. At least this time I was informed outright I couldn't do tweeting, period, during the week-long suspension.
Now, to be honest, in a sense I knew I was playing with fire, because at least one time in the past Twitter had suspended me over ostensibly using the word.
The term has become politically incorrect, but surprise, surprise, that doesn't impress me much. My blog post and the original Facebook post have not attracted any favorable support. I didn't really expect people to do or say something which might draw negative attention to themselves. I don't regularly use the term; I've used it primarily for dramatic effect, like Cher's infamous face slap in "Moonstruck".
The leftist basically accused me of promoting a debunked allegation of Nancy Pelosi. I said nothing of the kind. I said the House sergeant at arms, who reports to Pelosi, sits on the Capitol Police Board (which turned down the offer of National Guard assistance). That is stone cold fact. I never said Pelosi had more than one (indirect) vote of 3 on the board. We know former Police Chief went to the House sergeant 4 times pressing the request. I pointed out there had been speculation in the press for weeks about a possible confrontation with the Trump rally, intentionally held just before the Congress was to confirm Biden's election. I'm sure Pelosi knew all about the media coverage and I felt she had a professional obligation to ensure the Capitol police had all resources they needed on Jan. 6, better to decide on the side of caution and safety. I see no evidence this took place. In fact, Irving specifically said the reason he pushed back on the Sund request was because he knew the lawmakers didn't like the optics of a military presence on Capitol Hill. I've also pointed out in my earlier essay that I also held then Senate Majority Leader McConnell responsible with respect to the Senate Sergeant of Arms.
The issue I wrote the initial reply to the leftist troll was because he was whitewashing Pelosi's role on Jan. 6 events. I never said or implied that Sund went directly to Pelosi. There's been some acknowledgment that Irving made the offer known to leadership, but we don't really know the specifics of who was there or when. But in my view, this doesn't excuse Pelosi if she wasn't in the room. She had a responsibility to act proactively in members' interest.
Now, of course, it's hard to say all of that in 240 characters. But accusing me, as the leftist does, of pushing some anti-Pelosi Facebook meme I never saw or believed, is beyond disingenuous.
Should I have let some leftist troll jerk my chain? Probably not. Do I really give a damn what some stupid leftist troll thinks of me? Not really. I used that word to emphasize he didn't understand my tweet at all. People insult people on Twitter every day. The deleted tweet made 3 specific points; its intent wasn't primarily a pejorative aimed at a stupid troll. This sort of reminds me of an anecdote I've mentioned in the blog before from my days as assistant professor at UWM. I was talking to KK, a senior professor, when all of a sudden she started repeating some mantra. What the hell is she talking about? It suddenly occurred to me she was trying to correct my use of a word earlier in the conversation. She was totally detached from the discussion after I used a word she didn't like. It was really insulting and petty. Trying to take a word used once or twice out of context is patently absurd. I don't need Twitter Nanny correcting my speech and distorting what I wrote. I'm making 3 points in that tweet, and it's all about they don't like a word I used. There are a thousand different ways people insult other people on Twitter; all of those are rude. Stop making some insults "more equal".
Now really I don't get involved in many Twitter exchanges. I'm not quite sure how Twitter decides which replies I get notifications about. In my Tweet summary page, it isn't unusual for me to see at least one reply to any tweet I write that gets a decent number of impressions; in some cases, I'll extend one of my own tweet threads with a reply or quote tweet. As to others, I don't know if it's just some random leftie or Trumpkin unhappy with something I wrote or I've got some shadow person(s) obsessed with contradicting my tweets. Twitter does show me a mentions tab, which is usually blank. On my Tweet summary page I'll sometimes see my "top mention" of the month, usually the person who gets the most likes/retweets contradicting me. I don't really worry about people disagreeing with me; it comes in an open market with the territory of tweeting anything controversial in nature. I myself have probably replied to thousands more tweets than I've gotten replies myself and the vast majority of these get little if any active impressions, e.g., my replies to clueless political whores like Cherokee Lizzie or Comrade Bernie.
Sometimes my replies have triggered a response from an irritated thread OP, as in the case of this particular tweet; in other cases, my own original tweets have provoked a response. Now, to be honest, there are tons more progressive Twitter users out there than libertarian or conservative ones who might share my opinion, and almost every political trend is dominated by progressives commenters. I could probably spend all my spare time doing nothing but contradicting others and barely touch the surface. Which ones do I pick and why? It's subjective; sometimes it's just someone who is just way out there. Quite often I end up doing some Googling to find a source which corroborates something I'm saying.
The Twitter suspension is counterproductive; Twitter is like a form of porn: I'm not interested in watching other people have all the fun. So however Twitter is monetizing its operations, I won't be watching their ads, etc., during my break. They have lost the benefit of the unique content I provide, probably attracting thousands of impressions during the hiatus.
So will I be quitting Twitter altogether? I've thought about it, but for now I'll keep my account. There will be some changes. I'll probably spend less time on Twitter; it's not a productive use of time and effort. I'm not interested in poking a bear with a stick; the vast majority of my tweets don't provoke Twitter's language nannies. I'm not George Carlin interested in testing the limits with 7 dirty words. If I want to insult other people, there are 1001 other ways to do that compatible with Twitter guidelines. But I've never been interested in insulting people for its own sake. I'll sometimes mock someone who's gotten a little too full of himself.
In a few of my posts I've sometimes mentioned Nate Thurston and Chuck Thompson of "Good Morning, Liberty". Their most popular broadcasts are Friday's "Dumb BLEEP of the Week". They'll usually round up a half dozen or so of the dumbest things politicians, Twitter users, and others have said over the past week (and their Patreon subscribers (nope, I'm not one) vote the "winner". I have to laugh when they mention clueless leftist Twitter handles like Brooklyn Dad Defiant, because I've probably personally responded to maybe a dozen or so of his rants over time.
Now Twitter is a perfect tool for showcasing my talent for ad libs and sarcasm. But it's not a good format for serious discussions or debates. Some progressive can just spout some nonsense off the top of his head in a few words, and the scholar in me says, "Now where do I even start with this rubbish?" I'm a follower of George Will, and he generally avoids Twitter battles. Why? If you read his columns or listened to his Sunday talk show commentaries, like any academician (including myself), he patiently builds to his point in quite some meticulous detail. You just can't do it 280 characters at a time. I have often exasperated supervisors with lengthy, detailed emails; Dr. Scamell, my dissertation chair, used to joke it would take me 20 minutes just to identify myself.
So literally for years in my blog (especially around the post #4000 or #5000 milestones), I've floated various new special formats for blogposts, like questions/answers or other exchanges, where I'm not necessarily tied down to micro-post formats. I'm not really ripping off the GML guys' format; it's not even that novel a concept; David Letterman had his signature Top 10 lists, "Dear Abby" might issue her advice to multiple readers, etc.
So over the coming weeks I'll probably introduce a new blog format: "Dr. Ron Responds". (A past supervisor nicknamed me "Dr. Ron" and it quickly caught on with co-workers. Who knows? Maybe she got the idea from "Dr. Phil" McGraw.) Of course, in time, maybe I'll allow reader comments in a different blog. I just haven't wanted to spend time and effort moderating the comments of neo-Nazi crackpots and the like. I don't have a sample post prepared, but it'll probably be a flexible format where I embed a lefty tweet or some Internet meme, quote some clueless politician, etc., and evolve in much of the way my daily miscellany post has evolved. Stay tuned in.
