That's a very interesting take on the series of posts from the person you mentioned blocking (who I won't point out here given you chose not to in your essay). I hadn't considered it that way; I was thinking about it as a way to demonstrate liberal principles of open debate, and respecting one's interlocutors enough to have a (mostly) civil discussion. However, I'm not really steeped in Twitter culture (I see people write about "...and they quote-retweeted me" and I get that the implication is that this is something bad or rude or something, but don't understand); I think I see your point: pick on a particularly stupid response, hold it up for ridicule in the guise of having a conversation, or something like that.
Happy New Year Andrew ... yes, I think that this is how that person rationalises their behaviour. What I mean by 'quote tweeting' is the re-sharing of someone else's comment to one's own audience, with one's own comments. If you imagine being out and about and either someone saying something to you, or overhearing them say it to someone else. Then you mounting a soapbox and saying 'that person over there said x and I am disagreeing with them for these reasons', what are you really doing other than drawing attention to yourself while one-upping the other person?
It's also context-dependent. If the person doing this has a significant following compared to the person whose view they are drawing attention to I think it's straight up bullying. It doesn't matter to me if that 'smaller' account is saying something that I too find reprehensible, it's still bullying.
That's my moral condemnation of such behaviour, but my disapproval doesn't end there.
I see it as almost entirely self-promotion while pretending to be acting for some higher cause. Look at all the congratulatory strokes they receive when they do this. That is what I believe they are really seeking. To be told what good work they're doing.
But the worst aspect - and what triggered me to mute them (not block) - was that they were amplifying the very talking points that they claim to seek to suppress by persuading their interlocutor toward a 'better path'. The person in question is therefore achieving the very opposite of what they claim to be aiming for. As an academic they ought to have the intelligence to know that no one is ever persuaded to change their view by being belittled on social media.
In passing I'll also say that I know emotional dysregulation when I see it and that troubles me too. That person sometimes reports poor mental health episodes, during which they announce a pause in posting. Their hyper-aroused states are something I don't enjoy witnessing.
But yes, we can also go with your closing point, because that's exactly what's really going on with people like that. It sucks the oxygen out of my Notes experience and the fact that they did not want to acknowledge my intervention said a lot about what they're really doing.
That's a very interesting take on the series of posts from the person you mentioned blocking (who I won't point out here given you chose not to in your essay). I hadn't considered it that way; I was thinking about it as a way to demonstrate liberal principles of open debate, and respecting one's interlocutors enough to have a (mostly) civil discussion. However, I'm not really steeped in Twitter culture (I see people write about "...and they quote-retweeted me" and I get that the implication is that this is something bad or rude or something, but don't understand); I think I see your point: pick on a particularly stupid response, hold it up for ridicule in the guise of having a conversation, or something like that.
Happy New Year Andrew ... yes, I think that this is how that person rationalises their behaviour. What I mean by 'quote tweeting' is the re-sharing of someone else's comment to one's own audience, with one's own comments. If you imagine being out and about and either someone saying something to you, or overhearing them say it to someone else. Then you mounting a soapbox and saying 'that person over there said x and I am disagreeing with them for these reasons', what are you really doing other than drawing attention to yourself while one-upping the other person?
It's also context-dependent. If the person doing this has a significant following compared to the person whose view they are drawing attention to I think it's straight up bullying. It doesn't matter to me if that 'smaller' account is saying something that I too find reprehensible, it's still bullying.
That's my moral condemnation of such behaviour, but my disapproval doesn't end there.
I see it as almost entirely self-promotion while pretending to be acting for some higher cause. Look at all the congratulatory strokes they receive when they do this. That is what I believe they are really seeking. To be told what good work they're doing.
But the worst aspect - and what triggered me to mute them (not block) - was that they were amplifying the very talking points that they claim to seek to suppress by persuading their interlocutor toward a 'better path'. The person in question is therefore achieving the very opposite of what they claim to be aiming for. As an academic they ought to have the intelligence to know that no one is ever persuaded to change their view by being belittled on social media.
In passing I'll also say that I know emotional dysregulation when I see it and that troubles me too. That person sometimes reports poor mental health episodes, during which they announce a pause in posting. Their hyper-aroused states are something I don't enjoy witnessing.
But yes, we can also go with your closing point, because that's exactly what's really going on with people like that. It sucks the oxygen out of my Notes experience and the fact that they did not want to acknowledge my intervention said a lot about what they're really doing.