Posted on

Twitter 1

Hello friends 🙂

Well, it appears that @jack really took #ComeyDay hard.

I was having quite a swell time on Twitter.

But apparently I have been banned in some sort of way.

And I thank my friend Chris for just now notifying me that my troubles were not merely a figment of my imagination.

I have been locked out of my account for well over 14 hours.

And I will say this…

If you want to solidify someone’s determination, make them feel persecuted.

So thank you, Twitter.

I shall now start a new series about you.

And it shan’t be flattering.

Because I would like to point out some dynamics of dialogue on Twitter.

First, and above all, there appear to be many (MANY) Trump supporters who are inordinately “Islamophobic”.

Yes, I know…that terminology has lost a bit of its meaning.

Because, like “anti-Semitic”, it has been bandied about too freely.

But as I spoke out more on Twitter (by which, I mean, I engaged more in commenting on Tweets…as opposed to merely posting my own “material”), I received much more attention.

I started gaining followers quite rapidly.

This was nice.

But the Islamophobia was overwhelming.

Let me be quite clear.

This is the second time I’ve been on Twitter.

I initially joined just to make a friendly comment.

I saw a reporter claim that she was being harassed by “sock puppet” accounts.

Hmmm…

I thought.

“This reminds me of something.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice

What struck me was that reporter, Lee Ann McAdoo of Infowars, complained of roughly 10 sock puppet accounts (her analysis) following her at once.

This number.

10.

Stuck in my mind.

And so, if you read the above Wikipedia article, you will find that the U.S. government has contracted with the company Ntrepid for “specialized software, allowing agents of the government to post propaganda…[with] 10 sockpuppets [sic] controllable by each user.”

Wow…

Ok.

So Ms. McAdoo, whether she’s familiar with this U.S. military system or not, experienced a sort of surveillance which just happened to be roughly (or exactly) equal to specifications solicited by the U.S. government itself.

To be clear, as reported by The Guardian, the U.S. Air Force publicly sought “persona management software” which would “create ’10 personas per user, replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent'”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing

Ok 🙂

I have nothing against the U.S. Air Force.

I love the U.S. Air Force.

It is the most dominant branch of the military services here in my hometown.

But, to be clear, this was the information I was attempting to relay to Ms. McAdoo when I first joined Twitter about 9 (?) months ago.

Back to my previous line of thought, I experienced some Islamophobia when I first joined Twitter, but I didn’t think too much of it.

I thought it was weird.

But I just kind-of ignored it.

Do I think Islamophobes should be banned from Twitter?

No.

Do I think Islamic people should be banned from Twitter?

No.

Now, when I was first on Twitter, it roughly coincided with the Presidential election.

I was not “sold” on Mr. Trump until well into the campaign process.

What worried me most about him?

  1.  His seemingly illogical position on immigration
  2. His ostensibly anti-Islam rhetoric

Why #1?

Well, I live in a highly “diverse” city.

More accurately, I live in a very Mexican-American city.

Are there illegal immigrants in my city?

Of course.

Do I mean them any harm?

Of course not.

However, there is a pretty clear, easily-understandable (and generally global) law of borders which coexists with the idea of national sovereignty.

Until a country has ceded national sovereignty to a supranational power (as the states of the European Union have), they retain control of their own borders.

They get to decide who may enter and who may not enter their respective countries.

Though there have been large initiatives aimed at erasing borders in North America (such as NAFTA), Mexico, the United States, and Canada all retain the right to set their own immigration policies.

[in others words, they are not mandated by some higher authority to accept anyone they do not wish to accept]

Having said all this, I still found Mr. Trump’s apparent plan troubling.

Was he really planning on deporting 11 million illegal immigrants?

Just the logistics of that itself was unfathomable.

But I had to make a decision.

Did the immigration laws on the books matter?

I decided they do.

As much sympathy as I have for people crossing the U.S.-Mexican border simply in hopes of a new life of greater economic opportunity (and my sympathy is immense), it is still an illegal act.

There’s no need to supercharge the issue any more than that.

If you want to come to the United States, you should fill out an application.

It may take a long time.

It may take forever.

But it you cross the border illegally, you are doing so at your own risk.

Getting to that second point (#2)…

I had a wonderful professor from Pakistan in my graduate studies.

And though he was very liberal (and I became more conservative), I still respected (and do respect) him immensely.

He was proud to be a Muslim.

I have no problem with that.

That is a fundamental part of American values.

Freedom of religion.

It’s also within the rights of Americans to protest against Sharia law.

I, myself, am not out on the streets protesting against it.

Perhaps I don’t understand the issue fully.

But I believe both sides have a right to express their opinions.

Our court system will ultimately decide whether Sharia law is a legal “add-on” to our current law system.

I’m not going to get into that.

As I said, I don’t know enough about it to have an intelligent opinion on the subject.

But I will say this:

I find the current xenophobia in the U.S. troubling.

And this is an area in which Trump supporters could improve.

Which brings me to a very serious point:

humor.

As I made more “friends” on Twitter (which I was glad to do), I sensed the tide of Islamophobia growing.

My Twitter feed (of my friends’ posts) was inundated with anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Some was based on logic.  Some was based on emotion.

But instead of trying to CORRECT (or censor, as Twitter has done to me…apparently) every utterance with which I did not agree, I rather dedicated myself to dispersing this hatred.

Let’s put it this way…

If you grow up in a backwater (where people are suspicious of outsiders), you are completely blanketed with the one-dimensional thought of your townsfolk.

Now.

You can try to be a hero and refute EVERY FUCKING OPINION with which you do not agree, or you can be clever.

If you get someone to laugh, you just might convince (“disarm”, for lack of a better word) them of their folly and, simultaneously, allow them to save face.

This is very important in psychological warfare.

Make no mistake (as Barack Obama used to say every 5 minutes):

Operation Earnest Voice (described earlier) is psychological warfare.

Twitter banning me without any explanation (their excuse that I was displaying signs of “automated” activity is laughable…I’m the most random person in the world) is psychological warfare.

And me, trying to pull my fellow Trump supporters up to higher ground, is psychological warfare.

The “open society”, of which Twitter no doubt sees itself (in cahoots with George Soros [who got the idea from Karl Popper]), is categorically hypocritical (and shortsighted) if it tries to silence people like me.

To quote myself (from earlier), “If you want to solidify someone’s determination, make them feel persecuted.”

It could very well be that Twitter is experiencing some sort of technical malfunction.

But I have searched a few places.

And I think their barring of me (while it may be temporary) is an attempt to humiliate me and “chill” my speech.

They want to let me know who’s boss.

Fine 🙂

Twitter, as a publicly-traded company (on the NYSE), has now made a new enemy.

They can discount me as a David.

And I can cower to them as a Goliath.

But we need only two examples from recent history to know that the underdog can achieve a crushing upset:

  1.  Brexit
  2. Trump

I will admit that not all of my attempts at humor on Twitter have been kosher (for lack of a better word).

In my half-delirious, giddy attempts to tickle, I have probably touched a nerve or two.

[As Frank Zappa said, “Have I offended someone?” :)]

And I will admit further.

Trolling is fun.

Trolling is but the negative connotation of an activity which liberals have long held close to their hearts:  speaking truth to power.

I trolled RAND Corporation.  [yes I did] 🙂

{and if liberals knew anything about history, they would join me…perhaps for different reasons than mine}

I trolled John Podesta.  [this is about as common as AIR on Twitter]

I trolled George Soros.  [perhaps even more ubiquitous than Podesta trolling]

I trolled Jack Dorsey (@jack).  [something on which conservatives and liberals should be able to agree]

And I probably trolled some other people.

Hmmm…let’s see.

AIPAC.

Ari Fleischer.

Richard N. Haass.

But none of these were repetitive.

Unless I am forgetting something, I only REALLY harped on the RAND Corporation (because, actually, I kinda love them).

Tough love.

You want your country’s institutions to be better.

My complaints about RAND’s Twitter presence:

  1.  Their subjects of inquiry are very (VERY) boring
  2. Their social media manipulation is thoroughly daft

One of my idols, the esteemed Dr. Steve Pieczenik, consulted (in the past) for the RAND Corporation.  That is a high bar.  I do not see that mark being approached by the very unimaginative forays which RAND’s experts are ostensibly making.

As I pointed out to RAND publicly, if their overall social media mission was (by way of deception) to fool our enemies (foreign countries, I suppose) into thinking that the think tank had become unfathomably impotent, then they have (in my opinion) succeeded.

But enough about RAND.

It’s probably a glitch, right?

Well, I’m not so sure.

Twitter has my number.

And I’ve been trying for a full day (it seems) to restore my account.

God knows to what they might have taken umbrage.

Let me say a final thing.

I have blocked many people on Twitter.

Because, I don’t seek to engage in any “fights”.

99% of the time, if someone has insulted me, I simply block them.

But I did hold someone to task the other night.

It was quite an anodyne argument (by Twitter standards).

But let me make this statement.

I have never “reported” anyone.

Whether they insult me or someone else.

Some of my fellow Trump supporters are just being dumb.

There’s no law against that.

You would have to outlaw the entire Internet to quash “hate speech” (whatever that is).

And so to the person or persons (or corporate/institutional entity) who reported me, I can only reply with the most American phrase I know (and one which I equally extend to Twitter itself):

Fuck you!

 

-PD

 

2 responses to “Twitter 1

  1. This flows very well. The radical left is not a champion of free speech.

    • Thank you 🙂 Yes, apparently the days of Berkeley “freedom” are over. If they don’t agree with you, they will shut you down. One of the reasons I left liberalism behind. –Paul

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s