At the End of the Day

This tweet came in tonight, I having ruefully suggested it’s not nice to call James Delingpole a twat:

‘if you can’t take being called a twat, twitter isn’t for you’.

So there we have it: the Tweeter at large on why Twitter is really for bigots who want to insult each other.

I use Twitter all the time – for two very simple reasons: first, it’s an excellent way to satirise all those deluded ‘important’ folks who think their contribution to the sum of human thought is priceless. Much of it is indeed priceless – but not in the sense they intended. A classic example of this was last week’s Van Rompuy tweet, ‘Many congratulations to EU on receiving Nobel Prize – richly deserved’. And now that Dave Cameronandon has joined this happy breed of clowns, it’s even more fun than it was with only Dan Hannan to go at.

Second, it is an excellent source of new Sloggers. The tone of voice one adopts in tweets is, especially, an effective way of targeting and then attracting the real, commonsense, humorous radicals I want at the site.

But what Twitter also encourages (not a good thing) is knee-jerk trashing. Generally speaking, sorry, tweeting, it involves a deadly combo of Right Wind-Ups followed by Left Expletives followed by Right Retweets. And guess what? No matter how long it goes on, the Left doesn’t get it. Amazing. Who’d’ve thought that, eh?

James Delingpole, Dan Hannan and others of the Youthful Madly Conservative Association (YMCA) pull the same stunt over and over again: those with whom they disagree are ignored or blocked, while those who use expletive-crammed insults are gleefully retweeted. “See – observe,” they say, smiling behind a metaphorical hand, “I am of the Right and True way, a harmless victim of nasty foul-mouthed Lefties.” And still the Left bites at the bait with gusto every time.

What does this tell us about the robotic nature of pre-programmed polemics in this country? Simply this: the Right cannot stop demonising the Left…and the Left cannot stop being demonic.

Surely the sane 70% in between these two deserve something better?

25 thoughts on “At the End of the Day

  1. Slightly off topic perhaps, but I read the Spectator coffeehouse blog (although much less than I used to) and in the comments you get a reasoned remark, followed by trolling (a person calling themselves telemachus and other names) followed by rebuttals and re-trolling…… almost ad infinitum. I scroll through these, because it is all ‘he said…’ ‘no he didnt’ …he sold our gold ….he saved our banks… etc etc.
    It is total rubbish, and I am quite sure that Spectator has lost many readers as a result. Why dont they DO something about this drivel?
    (there is sometimes the teensiest bit of this sort of thing here, but not to the extent that one doesnt wish to read the comments, I have to say!)

  2. What it tells us is that “all the world’s a stage”.

    And there is no shortage of camp queens trying to get on it and stay on it.

  3. “an effective way of targeting and then attracting the real, commonsense, humorous radicals I want at the site.”…
    John, if I may make a sincere and well intentioned suggestion:
    As well as looking forward to your posts, and amazed at your output, I also usually enjoy the comments that follow. Your more informed ‘real, commonsense, humorous radicals ‘Sloggers’ threads -and their links, as well as being a cut above the usual ‘Ya Boo Bitchez’ to be found on, say, ZH, are a constant source of interest and enlightenment.
    The prob is that as soon as you post a new thread those valuable comments cease in the previous one.
    If you could keep your powder dry and perhaps limited your posts to one daily, I’m sure no-one would complain and enjoy them more..
    Sorry that I can’t keep up!
    Kindest wishes,
    KJH

      • Sorry KJH and gonad2012truthseeker…………..but I live for my slog posts after work, and on days where there are two or, shiver, one post, I do be at a low ebb.

    • When I am catching up with Johns posts, I still comment on the older threads purely (and maybe assuming wrongly that other people do likewise) because I have found that additions to earlier threads often add to the story when I revisit.
      When JW is at low ebb, I often go back over the weeks posts just to see what has been added after I last gazed upon the wisdom and information potrayed within.
      I say, that if John has something to post – post it ! The spread of knowledge and pressure must be maintained. Likewise the commenting to add viewpoints for consideration to a given situation.

  4. Trolling is a method used to belittle and undermine serious arguments,that John is why when we hear the answers to our problems they will quickly catch on, despite a torrent of trolling.
    For i am sure your own ideas have been trolled
    trolling allows the trolls to perverse and censor free speech,the great crime is the trolling,i admire the left for the steadfast believe in what they believe denied real access to papers and TV to make their point free speech in Britain died under thatcherism
    They wanted the right to manage and look what they have managed to achieve

  5. I agree – people shouldn’t be so easy to rise to the bait of obvious trolls, especially those, such as Delingpole, who cast themselves as victims of an, ‘onslaught’ of insults. On the other hand, as that recent storify doing the rounds proves, he’s not really open to the concept of debate either – there’s no insulting here, certainly – http://storify.com/ellispritchard/jamesdelingpole-gets-confused

    I think that the point is that people, such as Delingpole, are the self-aggrandising sort – they don’t exist on social networks to converse with others, but to make themselves look good, and to pat people on the back who agree with them. Best just to ignore them, in the same way that the people of Corby will be soon – just hope the publicity is worth the price of deposit that he’ll be losing.

    • I would disagree about Delingpole. I think he is not included in ‘social networks’ because he does not hold conformist views and sets about attacking them for the ridiculous non facts they peddle.
      I do not agree with everything he writes but he does within the bounds of the ‘MSM’ debollook quite a lot of the hallowed shibboleths of the ‘society crowd’.
      As to trolls, I do on occassion pick up the gauntlet and spend a day having at ‘em but I do tend to get bored with them easily so usually tend to ignore and skip anything they add.
      There again…. maybe I am thought of as a troll………… and I just don’t realise it :)

      • the problem with the word ‘troll’ is that the meaning of the word has been diluted to the point where it seems to basically mean, ‘someone who is not in agreement with me’ when that’s just not the case. it doesn’t even mean someone who swears at you.

        A proper troll is someone who is more the passive aggressive type, where they’re winding people up, and feigning ignorance that the statement they just made is in any way inflammatory. It’s a brilliant way of having your cake and eating it – you get to wind people up and then take the high ground when those people (who, admittedly, are a bit thick) argue back, citing free speech. It’s a brilliant wheeze.

  6. O/T

    “King warns Bank action reaching limit”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1249dca8-1d28-11e2-abeb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AA9QuovA

    “Sir Mervyn urged banks, in particular, to recognise the need to accept many of their pre-crisis loans would ultimately go sour. “I am not sure that advanced economies in general will find it easy to get out of their current predicament without creditors acknowledging further likely losses, a significant writing down of asset values and RECAPITALISATION (my emphasis) of their financial systems,” he said.”

    “Sir Mervyn argued that it could not prevent the economy’s painful but necessary long-term rebalancing. People would inevitably realise that their futures would be less bright because of the financial crisis, which “has rendered unprofitable some of the investments made before the crisis”.”

  7. One man’s troll is anothe man’s strongly put but sometimes considered opinion.
    I think it’s all to easy to paint people as trolls. It depends on whether you agree or disagree with their point of view.

    • Maybe, and I’m sure he’s very much a Clarkson style, ‘speak as I find’, kind of person, but that does not necessarily mean that their opinion is worth anything. The fact that it’s ‘considered’ doesn’t really make much difference – sure, to them, it makes perfect sense they’ve been, “thinking about it a lot”, but that doesn’t mean that any credence should be given to it unless actual facts can be attached to it.

    • I would disagree…. I would discribe a troll as someone who keeps coming back to promote a ‘position’ against that of the blog without any intent to discuss the point being made………..attacking the author just for either writing what they write or holding opinions with which they disagree (without ever being able to argue their case through knowledge disproving the bloggers opinion). – Oh and will never ever stop posting until everyone has else moved onto the next post. At which point they leave having ‘had the last word’.

  8. Over the family dinner this evening ( extended to 23 incl. cousins visiting) we held the debate and vote , as is the custom on JW’s world famousTHE SLOG opinion.
    We were again UNANIMOUS – that support for William Hague’s exit Euro preparation speeches, Theresa May’s opt out strategies, and Jeremy Hunt’s action on imposter medical equipment are all to the nation’s good, and the Motion was duly passed without objection.
    The port was passed to the rendition of ‘For they are all good fellows..’

  9. I think you’re on rather thin ice if you believe James Delingpole is not a twat. It is always possible that the contrarianism he adopts is nothing but a pose to stand out from the commentariat crowd. A N ‘Andrew’ Wilson does the same, and given that James has a steady berth on the ‘Speccy’, and pops up elsewhere quite regularly, it would seem to be paying off. But I don’t think it is a pose – this chap really is against everything and its Mum. James’s problem is that – especially when writing for the ‘Speccy’ he is continually preaching to the converted and there ain’t nothing quite as dull as that. Incidentally, I am one of the many who has been blocked by sweet baby James. I’m rather proud of it.

  10. Pingback: RE: [constitution] FW: PLEASE FORWARD-LORD PARASITE – Annette R.S. |

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