Twits = Twitter users who cannot think for themselves/back up their reactionary statements.
Disclaimer: I did not intend to set myself up as a #JordanPeterson apologist, but I believe in free speech, and credit where credit is due despite political leanings.
*Qualification for comment needs to come from experience or at least a cross-sectional study of works being discussed. Surely?
*I dislike racism, sexism, misogyny, religious hatred; all forms of abuse. Don't you? Think things through before you communicate with hate.
*Be polite. Why mock and scorn what you don't grasp? If you were nicer, your mindscape might open up like a complex flower exposed to the sun - this works both ways, naturally.
*Listen don't react. Check your answers before tweeting.
*When you've been wrong, realise and apologise. Don't be a smug Twit.
*If you've been a Twit delete - it happens to all of us.
I could go on but don't want to present as a self-righteous, self-aggrandising Twit (sorry if I already have)
I was involved in my own mini Twitter storm last week thanks to #BBCQuestionTime. I noted on their Twitter feed that #JordanPeterson was going to be on and made a mental note to watch it. I also watched the Tweets on the site go mental. Actually, make that transcendental. I tweeted like or dislike him, his research and thinking was thorough and interesting. A professor at Southampton University responded scornfully regarding his research on lobsters and a swarm of twits rushed to condemn me, though none of them had read the book and none could grasp that JP was making a point about serotonin’s role in the organisation of dominance hierarchies. Twits didn’t like his use of lobsters. Twits couldn’t see his point. Twits did not want to see his point as twits that are driven by their own agenda, (or as JP would put it, Marxist derived ideologies) don’t like that his reasoning does not fit in with their thinking - scrap that, the prevailing cultural thinking that wasn't their idea in the first place, but that they nevertheless cleave to.
JP cited lobsters because they have been around for millions (300 odd, if I remember correctly) of years and share common ancestry with humans (longer than primates or wolves which were popular choices for him amongst the Twits; or bees, as suggested by a particular queen bee, though I presume bees would be fine, given as I understand it, he is pointing out competence rather than somehow stating: ‘the patriarchy is a good thing’). Clearly these people had read the two biologists online that I could find who attacked his research on lobsters – the lady from UCL, whose paper was circulated in the New Statesman and other agenda driven publications. I realise the right have their agenda driven publications too, which is why reading broadly from left to right, helps when mining for truths. As far as I can tell they didn’t disprove the role of brain chemicals and competence. We’ve evolved, our brains are different, but JP was looking at the earliest common serotonin inducing species that we as humans have in common and how serotonin causes us to react similarly in terms of dominance. The prof was scornful. She wanted parallels, I gave her my vertical responses, stating at one point that I would need to do some further research as to why lobsters and serotonin and not other animals. Prof came back saying that any amateur could answer her question without studying, though she couldn’t answer it herself. I explained I wanted to reread that chapter and check the research, rounding off by stating I might be at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy in the Twittersphere in this regard – this manifestation of JP’s point was ignored as was my question asking what she thought of the rest of the book. I don’t think she’s read it. She’d already decided what she thought of it in advance. Other Twits use Google loaded machine guns (metaphorically speaking) to blast anyone who disagrees with them, whilst constantly retweeting each other's Twits. One Twit sent some Wikipedia info to 'easily' prove that JP, and presumably me, are stupid.
From the above, I learnt that when it comes to prevailing ideological beliefs, Twitter is a totalitarian state, if you don’t follow a certain agenda you must ‘die.' I deleted the initial tweet where I challenged the prof about her nastiness and scorn as I didn’t want to be ranked in the hierarchy of the nasty and I was tired of the piranhas swamping my notifications fed by this piece of meat. I also deleted later tweets where I pointed up (satirically) that an English? American? Australian? - they mostly don't identify with photos, but with cartoons and memes.Twit who unable to cope with the fact that JP does not actually throw kids across fields (they would be dead; the police would be involved) began attacking my writing that he’s never read – seeing a theme?
Further Tip: Never respond to a pumpkin. Another first degree Twit; not worth responding to, called Trumpkin, who when I continued to ignore him, slid down the crap scale (he uses language like ‘untermensch’) by tweeting that he hopes I never have children. I was tempted to respond that it was a pity that I couldn't travel back in time and give his/her? mother, the same advice; this is the thing about Twitter, when con/affronted by a Twit, it makes you come over all twit for t*at. Anyway, there's simply no womb for comments like this. His tweet was accompanied by research that I have been banging on about for decades on #smacking being harmful. He felt it was fine to abuse me whilst accusing JP of abuse. There is simply no grasp of irony amongst Twits. I only responded to the (cough) prof and briefly the Japan based Twit. Oh and tothe one who, in a spectacular Twitburst called JP, amongst other things a Christian Professor. I don't think JP identifies specifically as Christian, but what if we slid Muslim, Jew, White, Black or Gay in there?
More Twitbits to follow tomorrow.