I’ve noticed that more and more politicians are claiming that Twitter is becoming more bigoted.
I’m looking at you Adam Schiff!
What I wondered is this;
What would happen if people just randomly sent a tweet to people like Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, John Fetterman, Katie Hobbs, Nancy Pelosi, and whoever else popped to mind saying, “I Don’t like you.”
Nothing more than that. I realize that my list is all Democrats but hey why not give every politician the same treatment equally?
What would happen on Twitter? It’s not hate speech, it’s not a threat, it’s not a call for violence, or any of the other “banned” interactions. It’s simply telling the person in question unequivocally that you, as a person don’t like them.
This could be for any reason, you don’t like their politics, you don’t like their stance on gun control, you don’t think they’re doing a good job, whatever the reason, a simple generic, “I don’t like you,” shouldn’t be banned, it’s not bigoted, and it leaves the interpretation of your message open to the recipient.
Given that so many of these people seem to live for the adulation of the press, and attention from the public. I’ve wondered what receiving thousands or millions of generic messages like this would do to their collective psyches.
These people claim to want to protect democracy, how would they react to a completely egalitarian registration of people simply not liking them? What would they do if a preponderance of “I Don’t Like You” messages was all they received via their Twitter feed? I wonder if they’d get the message.
In the case of Adam Schiff who is claiming that he’s getting more bigoted remarks in the wake of Elon Musk taking the helm of Twitter, I think that perhaps Mr. Schiff is missing the point. Perhaps it’s not bigoted, perhaps the negative comments have nothing to do with his religion or appearance, but instead have to do with him personally.
I find Mr. Schiff to be a thoroughly unlikable person. Every time I’ve seen him giving speeches or appearing on chat shows he simply comes across as a nasty piece of work. So I don’t like him. Politically, he’s milquetoast except in his rabid hatred of all things Trump. To see him whining on CNN about bigotry on Twitter does nothing more than than confirm to me he’s a weak individual struggling to hold onto power.
Most of the rest of the Twitterati, (of which I was one,) have lived under draconian, arbitrary, capriciously enforced “rules”. Twitter users could say, “I wish Trump was dead,” or “All infidels in Synagog X should be killed.” But other Twitter users couldn’t say The Transgender agenda is more far reaching than has been said and I think they’re after our kids. A Twitter user who said something negative about transgenders would be banned instantly.
Now that censorship is not protecting Adam Schiff from real people that don’t like him, his feelings are hurt and he views people speaking their mind as an affront.
I think Adam Schiff should grow a pair, and perhaps should grow some thicker skin too. If he actually believes in what he’s doing and is committed to his position, then it doesn’t matter what people say about him.
That’s what I mean by saying he’s proving to me, with every single appearance where he’s bitching and whining about bad things being said about him or to him on Twitter, that he’s a terribly weak individual with weak commitment to his values. He’s changeable as the wind, last month he liked Twitter, because he was protected from the slings and arrows of the American Public. This month Twitter is bad, for no other reason than he gets to see what people really think.
Politicians getting direct engagement from their constituents could be a good thing. If for no other reason than politicians would have a less filtered and isolated view of what is important to the people they govern.
I suppose this was why I was thinking about a simple concise message, “I don’t like you,” might be useful. It’s up to the politician to reach out and ask why. If they choose not to engage, then the American People would have another valuable data point for the next election.
On the other hand, if a politician chose to ask why 900,000 people sent him or her, “I don’t like you,” on a particular day and found that their position of a particular issue had been misreported. They would have the opportunity to explain themselves and perhaps get a message back from the American People that said, “Okay I get it. Thank you for the clarification.” They may not win everyone over, but at least they’d be in contact with the people and not acting as if they lived in a bubble.
If we’re really all about democracy then let’s be democratic.
It is things like this thought that make me almost ready to engage in Twitter again. I just can’t quite decide if it’s worth my time or effort yet.
In the case of Buttigieg and Jean Pierre, at least they look like everyone else. But their record of achievements leaves something to be desired.
Jean Pierre, is doing the best she can, of that I’m sure. Her problem is that she always seems unprepared. I’d imagine that her blood pressure is ringing the “DANGER WILL ROBINSON” bell every single day after Biden or Harris have spoken publicly. That she’s appearing unprepared is making the public wonder if LGBTQ+ people are competent especially considering that Buttigieg hadn’t been doing too much to get things moving seamlessly again.
Then we get to Sam Brinton. All I can say is what the fuck? I cringe everytime he/she/it/zem/zer, whatever the hell, shows up in the paper, or on TV.
Last on the hit parade is Rachel Levine. I can’t say anything more than Really? Come on man.
