"Twitter Tirades", and Other Twaddle

I wonder who it was who thought appending the word “rant” to the word “Twitter” would evoke anything but contradiction, let alone important news. One look at the real world proves that a man engaging in a “Twitter tirade” is indistinguishable from a man tweeting pictures of his cat. Both are expending the same amount of energy to thumb, in less than 146 characters, some pithy statement or other on his chosen device. Surely something more important is going on out there.

Perhaps people do take to twitter to rant, and a tweet is indeed some absolute statement and principle, but such information can only be verified by the one making the tweet, and not by any other measure. So it comes with no surprise that a fair bit of imagination, fantasy and projection goes into discerning intent from tweets between Twitter users.

But all of that doesn’t stop the press from reporting on a tweet as if it was something more than than what it is.

Take a recent CNN article, comically titled Chilled by Trump's tweets? You should be, as an example. The author considers Trump’s tweets about the Hamilton musical and Saturday Night Live to be an example of Trump lashing out at Americans who were exercising their free speech, adding that “[his] reaction should chill every American with its implication: A President Trump may well try to suppress speech”. Later on in the article the author assumes that the news reports—most likely CNN’s—“were apparently too much for [Trump], and he took to Twitter to make it clear that Americans should never engage in that type of expression”. All of this derived from some tweets.

Remember, this is “real” news. But observe the unmitigated fantasy in this article, evidenced by the author’s request to “think about what Trump is saying with this tweet”, or in other words, to consider the author’s psychic abilities. In reading Trump’s tweets, the author saw Trump “lash out” at Americans exercising their rights in his mind’s eye. In the crystal ball known as twitter, he saw Trump “going after” SNL, as if a cat chasing a ball of yarn. Reading perhaps a little too far between the lines, he saw in the tweets about SNL that Trump was “so outraged”, that “he called for the show to be cancelled”, that he often “stifles dissent”, “emboldening his followers in their intimidation”, resulting in anti-semitic tweets at jewish journalists, the “anti-semitic hate from self-professed Trump fans”, which will ultimately result in a chilling effect for dissenters and critics, who are no doubt in perpetual fear of...well...more tweets.

So long first amendment; so long free speech; so long freedom. All of this and not once did the author need to tear his eyes from the the twitter app on his iPad. This raises a question: Is the machinations of a paranoid and tweet-riddled mind newsworthy?

A better argument than the one found in the CNN article could be made. Chilled by Trump tweets? Then it is time to put down the f###ing device and go outside.

Thank you for reading
- LesMis

You voted for him, didn't you?

a reply to: InTheLight

You voted for him, didn't you?

No, I didn't.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

You voted for him, didn't you?

No, I didn't.

Oh, well then. I will reread your opening post with a different slant.

a reply to: InTheLight

Oh, well then. I will reread your opening post with a different slant.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Trump fan. It's just that I'm not American.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Oh, well then. I will reread your opening post with a different slant.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Trump fan. It's just that I'm not American.

So, then I won't reread your opening post.

a reply to: InTheLight

So, then I won't reread your opening post.

It wouldn't make a difference anyways.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

So, then I won't reread your opening post.

It wouldn't make a difference anyways.

Not to me, that is.

Twitter is our very own version of Newspeak. Condensed, one-way transactions but with the added bonus of travelling far and fast.

Great post, btw.

I do believe, however, that people that wish to be taken seriously should probably refrain from Tweeting. It just seems so frivolous.

a reply to: InTheLight

Not to me, that is.

It hasn't changed since the first time you read it.

a reply to: zosimov

I do believe, however, that people that wish to be taken seriously should probably refrain from Tweeting. It just seems so frivolous.

Or, in the case of some politicians, hire an army of speech writers and consultants to tweet for you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Not to me, that is.

It hasn't changed since the first time you read it.

Correct, it still remains subjective as the first time I read it.

a reply to: InTheLight

Correct, it still remains subjective as the first time I read it.

No, I mean the words haven't changed, and you will be reading the exact same thing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Correct, it still remains subjective as the first time I read it.

No, I mean the words haven't changed, and you will be reading the exact same thing.

The words do change with underlying intent.

a reply to: InTheLight

The words do change with underlying intent.

If you can point out where they've changed I'd be much obliged, because I made one grammatical correction, and that's about it.

To be fair, I don't think Donald has the verbal ability to express himself in more than 146 characters. I for one don't want a twitter troll as president, but it's too late for that.

To the other part of the OP, people take a presidents words, no matter the medium, literally and seriously. As they should, concerning the nature of the office. I'm not sure if that's something we should want to move away from.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

The words do change with underlying intent.

If you can point out where they've changed I'd be much obliged, because I made one grammatical correction, and that's about it.

What I mean is I read your opening post with the idea that you for Trump, which I suspected, so I read it with the knowledge that you are of a subjective mind concerning him. So, I then was assessing it subjectively not objectively. Isn't that what is going on...people assessing tweets or whatever subjectively depending on if one is for or against him?

By the way, he does some of his own tweeting.

varianceexplained.org...

a reply to: underwerks

To be fair, I don't think Donald has the verbal ability to express himself in more than 146 characters. I for one don't want a twitter troll as president, but it's too late for that.

To the other part of the OP, people take a presidents words, no matter the medium, literally and seriously. As they should, concerning the nature of the office. I'm not sure if that's something we should want to move away from.

Out of curiosity, why would you not want a twitter troll as president?

I don't necessarily want to discuss Trump's tweets—we can let the media concern themselves with that—but the fact that Twitter and tweets are increasingly fodder for news.

a reply to: InTheLight

Could you provide an example of a subjective statement in what I wrote?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

To be fair, I don't think Donald has the verbal ability to express himself in more than 146 characters. I for one don't want a twitter troll as president, but it's too late for that.

To the other part of the OP, people take a presidents words, no matter the medium, literally and seriously. As they should, concerning the nature of the office. I'm not sure if that's something we should want to move away from.

Out of curiosity, why would you not want a twitter troll as president?

I don't necessarily want to discuss Trump's tweets—we can let the media concern themselves with that—but the fact that Twitter and tweets are increasingly fodder for news.

Twitter trolls only outrage for attention, which is a dangerous attitude when it's the president you're talking about.

Twitter is only a thing with Donald because he makes it a thing. If he chose to have press conferences and actually talk about things that are on his mind people's reactions would reflect that. But he doesn't.

He chooses to make one line statements on social media that are open to interpretation. Then feigns outrage when they aren't interpreted the way he "says" he meant them.

Same modus operandi as his campaign for president.