Skip to main content

To Troll, or Not To Troll

I have been intending to write about an epiphany I had after the sudden end of a torrid affair in Barcelona. I was going to write about how I realized that all women are crazy all men stupid, and how that refined over the course of a walk home to be be we all exist on an X/Y axis of "crazy" and "stupid" determined by the extent of your personal privilege. I might write about that later but I'm actually more interested in my continued distraction from writing the things I vaguely intend to write. When I committed recently to posting twice a month I also planned to start writing more regularly. I've come to realize that I have been writing regularly, probably more than the 30 minute minimum that was my goal, it's just that it's in increments of 240 characters or less. I spend a lot of time sparring with dishonest people on Twitter threads about electoral politics and progressive policy.

I worry a bit that this is some weird modern techno social media addiction that soothes my naturally contrarian nature. I worry that it stops me from writing more productively on actual projects I have in mind which require more concentration and offer the potential of greater emotional reward. Even now as I write this I find myself returning to the thread on which I've been arguing. I'm concerned by the degree to which this relationship to Twitter makes it difficult to cultivate boredom, a very creative space for me, the way I once did. To be fair that might also be a function of being older in a city where I know I'm not really missing anything I might want to experience. I enjoy staring into space much more than I ever have before.

I find that I really enjoy this internet sparring and I'm really good at it. The reason that matters is that there have been several large expenditures made to fund people on social media who essentially spread disinformation and cynicism. There was an initial expenditure during the election, which may have been as high as 9 million, and there has been a continued effort since the election to pin the loss on Bernie Sanders and progressives. One way that I am very much my mother's son is that liars piss me off. After initially giving people saying provably false things the benefit of the doubt I've come to the conclusion that there's little difference between the willfully ignorant and the willfully dishonest. I treat them all the same: there really is no good argument for continuing to fund our military at growing levels despite its size relative to other countries or that building it creates the need to justify its constant use. This argument is even more difficult to make when you consider that it's often made as a reason why we can't afford universal health care and despite the fact that our infrastructure is basically melting. I like confronting the discourse range of obvious bad actors, from the concern trolls to the obvious former Republicans arguing for a democratic party resembling the one that "abandoned" them. I've been going back and forth with a Black "activist" who has stopped talking to me because it makes it easier to accuse all of the white progressives of being racist. I find these attempts to use identity politics selectively to be toxic and worth constantly calling out the way it's used to deter conversations around economic justice.

I was going to set this up as pro vs con thread and realized as I was writing that for me my reasons for engaging in this outweigh my concerns, which are real enough, but I've already won an "award" for my trolling for Justice, and their are a lot of dishonest people who've not yet blocked me out of frustration.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is