Zinnia Jones/2016-10-18 Tweetstorm

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This Tweetstorm began at 8:33pm on October 18 and concluded at 6:09am the following morning, a span of ~9.5 hours.

October 18

  • 20:33 Gonna go on a twitterthon about the general behavior and arguments of some twitter communists in a lil bit. Mute if you're tired of this :\
  • Okay. The twitter communists thing and associated stuff. I want to lead with the good here. There's good throughout, just uncomfortable-good
  • A lot of y'all have messaged me to offer your support and solidarity and affirmation and well-wishes. I see you. And I'm grateful <3
  • Your messages really did brighten my day and help me feel better throughout. It's wonderful that you're here, because you are wonderful.
  • And just to reaffirm - I don't relish the ugliness of what's been happening over this. I don't want it at all. I think it's a nightmare.
  • A lot of you - a lot of friends - have expressed concern and suggested I give myself a break from this, that I take time to regroup myself.
  • I know that comes from a good place, and yeah, I want others to feel better than they're likely feeling right now.
  • This moment, in this year, is unbelievably stressful in ways many of us have not experienced stress before.
  • It is ceaseless, it never goes away, it gets worse as we approach November. I physically feel terrible. I don't sleep well and am exhausted.
  • There is no year where I spent more time laying down, wishing the world would go away for just a moment, yet getting no real rest at all.
  • So believe me. I try, and try often, to tune out, distract myself, give myself a break, direct myself toward other, more neutral things.
  • But it's not easy and I don't often do well at that.
  • Emotionally I feel like I'm mourning and grieving the world I thought I knew - the world that I thought was so much better than this year.
  • My emotions are frayed in so many scrambled, erratic directions. Like a spiky ball, or static. There's no clear coherence - just loudness.
  • And I don't really know how to sort that out, and I've more or less given up on trying. This is a shitty miserable new normal for me.
  • So I appreciate that y'all do want what's best for me when you suggest I step away from a bit. But broadly there's nowhere to step away to.
  • If it's a matter of letting specific emotions particular to this thing settle down, yeah - I've been doing that. I like calm, as you do.
  • But in terms of my actual stances on this stuff, I've found those remain unchanged regardless of my emotions.
  • I know the implication is that I'd say a thing I'd regret due to the heat of the moment. Looking back, I've found I don't regret any of this
  • If anything, all that a placid mood changes is that it's easier to flesh out what I already believe in finer detail.
  • For a day or two I was a bit mystified at the barrage of incredibly hostile and extreme attitudes seemingly out of nowhere. It made no sense
  • But a lot of it does make more sense now that I have a better understanding of what the hell is going on here.
  • I usually stay off of most political stuff because I can't be bothered and/or it doesn't interest me much.
  • So, a lot of folks messaged me to tell me most of the people throwing harassing nonsense at me have a history of this bad-faith harassment.
  • The way that they felt was acceptable to engage with me is apparently something they do regularly and frequently.
  • I've also heard multiple times that most of these people are not even of voting age, which explains a lot.
  • I called this "adolescent power-tripping fantasies" earlier and it turns out that is actually a literal description.
  • They're so casual about things like wanting more electoral violence in the US, fantasizing about shooting bad guys in the face, >
  • > because they may actually just not comprehend what this means in a fully real sense. Developmentally their brains are a half-liquid cake.
  • I say this just to contextualize why a lot of the arguments they went on to make are... beyond confusing and beyond all reason.

October 19

  • 00:04 I see a lot of bad arguments, every day. These surprised me in just how bad they were.
  • And there were so *many* of these bad arguments that just accounting for all of them is a real task. I'll try to keep this to the highlights
  • Here was a common one: Blanket calls for *all* Republican assets and offices in the US to be bombed or even for Republicans to be killed.
  • I asked around and it turns out none of them had thought about what might happen to the campaigns or supporters that they do agree with.
  • Not impressed by those who said the rule of law sucks and they have a better idea that involves deciding elections via bombs.
  • It was pretty clear that they imagined only the baddies would have their stuff destroyed.
  • When I pointed out the possibility of their party's offices across the country littered with the corpses of innocent citizens, well...
  • Mostly their response was a refusal to acknowledge this, or really amped-up enthusiasm for the literal war zone that would replace elections
  • When I pressed, all of them admitted they won't be out there killing and bombing. They all expected someone else would do it.
  • They also seemed to expect someone else would figure out how to upgrade their own dem/green/soc/etc. campaign field offices into fortresses.
  • Oh and throughout this I was repeatedly criticized for calling their attitudes childish. You can see why I said they were childish.
  • "immature" was the -nicest- thing to say about someone who casually muses about how free and open elections suck compared to blowing shit up
  • There's irony in calling to fight Trump by reducing the election to Trump's only mode of interaction with the world: simply taking by force.
  • (sidenote: see http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350 . That really is how he sees the world in every way. It's why he brags about his many rapes.)
  • All in all they had no real endgame in mind. They just celebrated the immediacy of a bombing (I called this "fleshlight-shaped ethics").
  • And I guess they figured that once everyone and everything has been smashed to bits, we'll all finally be ready to start solving problems.
  • Again: *jerking-off gesture*
  • Just to be very clear: I asked them at length what exactly their ideal world of election violence would look like and how they'd plan for it
  • These questions were almost universally met with answers along the lines of 'I've never touched a gun'
  • When I expressed skepticism about why they'd want to dive into the Let's-all-kill-each-other Decision 2016 with no battle plan, well...
  • One of them said that people like me are responsible for their wholesale lack of preparedness because I discourage election violence.
  • If that actually is the case then, wow, I'm doing more good in the world than I thought. But it's not the case.
  • Somewhere in the middle of this I compared Donald Trump to atrocities by God described in the Bible and was promptly called antisemitic
  • And even once it was cleared up that this was more about broad Christianity and not focused on Judaism at all?
  • Apparently some people still felt that I'm not allowed to call biblical moralities immoral or speak ill of a god that they believe in.
  • I legitimately do not know what they expected when they came to twitter and clicked follow on Zinnia Jones.
  • Many of them helpfully explained that they, as religious adherents, find it offensive when a person criticizes the depictions of their deity
  • You know, because never once in the past decade had it occurred to me that religious people may take umbrage at criticism.
  • It's wholly weird that they seemed to actually expect some kind of retraction or apology for saying impertinent things about that deity.
  • It's also wholly weird that they insisted at length that I must have been attacking Judaism itself when I mentioned Jesus from the outset.
  • It's even weirder that they were outraged at me comparing God to Trump, who is horrible, when the whole argument was that Trump is horrible.
  • My mistake was in expecting that all religious believers could somehow resist making something all about them.
  • My disagreement with their deity made some religious people feel bad? Okay. Me being queer as hell also makes some religious people feel bad
  • Notice that I don't go around submitting my life for religious people's approval first.
  • Also I openly discussed this with those who objected for more than an hour. While being continuously told that I'm 'not listening'.
  • It felt like they were assuming that listening to them and understanding what they were saying would automatically mean agreeing with them.
  • Which is weird. When many of them did indeed appear to understand what I said, and still disagreed, my reply wasn't 'you're not listening!'
  • So! Like I prefaced this with: really, bizarrely, unimaginably bad arguments, right?
  • Except all that was just the lead-in. This is where the beat drops:
  • Communism.
  • A lot of people were aware but I wasn't until now - there's a large twitter clique of harassers who endorse a rigid, extremist communism.
  • The fantasy-football assholes who sat around doing nothing while tweeting calls to a "revolution" of bombing elections? Yeah. That's them.
  • So once I learned this, I also soon after learned that calling out these particular communists will immediately summon *all of them*.
  • Their approach to discourse makes every other person I previously criticized upthread look like Adlai Stevenson.
  • It was amazing to be exposed to 'discussion' that had been distorted beyond all recognition.
  • Their chief modes of interaction apparently consist of shoving words in your mouth - any words, from anywhere.
  • As in, accusations that you must believe things that couldn't ever reasonably be extrapolated from anything you'd ever said.
  • This wasn't a matter of, I said an ambiguous thing that could have been misunderstood. It's actually just pure invention.
  • "In bad faith" doesn't come close to describing their behavior. "In evil faith" is more like it.
  • Actually why even bother just describing it?
  • This *was* it: I'd tweeted about giving hundreds of dollars to Hillary and was told I clearly enjoy funding drones to blow up children.
  • Of note: They're still at it *right at this moment*. https://twitter.com/SuriPfote/status/788622408806756355 …
    • Twitlink: t.co/hQvm9jR0hr; account has been suspended.
  • In other words, by giving money to defeat a horrifying domestic fascist threat for president, I'm actually just shooting missiles at babies.
  • And once one of them came up with this incredibly specific line of """"reasoning"""", the rest found it so arousing they kept at it all day.
  • So! I'm materially working to stop a totalitarian nightmare man who'd throw the world into ruin, therefore I love bombing lots of kids :O
  • Hey Zinnia, you're throwing every spare dime at keeping the Orange Nuclear Tantrum out of the oval office? You're a fucking child-killer :)
  • Their exact words were "wonder how much drone fuel that'll cover". My exact words were "Hopefully a lot?"
  • And god did they ever blow their load over that
  • This was rapidly followed up by SO YOU DO LOVE BOMBING CIVILIANS DON'T YOU ZINNIA JONES for 12+ hours
  • Along with cries of "how could you possibly joke about that?"
  • I was then informed that drone warfare is something to be taken very seriously
  • Many people got in line to helpfully inform me, 'firing missiles in war can result in collateral damage and civilian deaths, which are bad'
  • It was a day-long chant of 'you should know that civilian casualties are bad! but I've decided you think they are good! you are very bad!'
  • In particular, I was informed that I clearly love and materially support the bombings of:
    • weddings
    • funerals
    • hospitals
  • I will admit: A lot of even well-meaning people, some of whom are close to me, seemed to think I was in the wrong for joking at that person.
  • And they did actually feel that what I said was cruelly dismissive of the realities of civilian deaths from drone strikes.
  • Those people were NOT childish twitter communists - they're incredibly decent people who meant this in good faith. I value that good faith.
  • And I value that they took this seriously and felt the need to address it. I respect that and I want to treat that with the same seriousness
  • The dozens who screamed at me that donating to Hillary means I like paying to bomb children are not taking those children's deaths seriously
  • Instead they reduce horrific, violent, unneeded deaths of children to a mere flashy and gaudy catchphrase to swing aimlessly at others.
  • They use those children's violent deaths for no reason other than to score goodie points on twitter and pat each other on the back.
  • They use the needless deaths of the children for the oh so important purpose of convicting someone of the high crime of donating to Hillary.
  • You picked out one single person who - gasp - donated toward the defeat of Donald Trump.
  • You decided this was important enough to employ the brutal deaths of innocent children to criticize me for doing that. For doing *that*???
  • You turned the slaughter of children into a cheap entrypoint for a juvenile and completely indefensible twitter pileon.
  • In fact calling it a 'pileon' dignifies it as having had some initial provoking event that stirred passions, which it didn't.
  • It happened because I donated to Hillary. That, to them, justified this. That. Just that.
  • You trivialized the killing of children and cynically, disgustingly used their deaths as a ridiculous veneer to legitimize random harassment
  • It's ridiculous because everyone knows you didn't make any sort of real or serious argument here.
  • It's random because you apparently just needed to find some Hillary supporter, any will do, to scream at today for no reason.
  • These people do not, by any means, treat the deaths of children in drone strikes with any seriousness or any gravity or moral weight.
  • Nothing about their actions, in even the slightest degree, demonstrates that they take the deaths of these innocent people seriously.
  • Their claim - that donating to Hillary means I'm happily throwing money toward bombing kids - is the fucking joke here.
  • At least it would be a joke if it wasn't so repulsive, so indefensible, so recklessly capricious, and so, so very fucking cheap.
  • So I have no reason to feel like I did wrong, to feel any regret at all, for immediately and unambiguously dismissing their evil bullshit.
  • I don't agree that I should be expected to take that seriously.
  • If you want to see this treated with seriousness - which I do completely understand - they are the ones who need to be told that.
  • They treat children's violent deaths as a mere excuse to harass random Hillary supporters. Tell them to take those deaths seriously.
  • I dismissed their trivialization of these children's deaths immediately. Here's what I was told for that, even by friends.
  • I was told 'this doesn't look good Zinnia'. I was told to 'step back'. I was told to 'take a twitter break'. I was told to 'calm down'.
  • I was told that my emotions were getting the better of me. I was told that I needed to de-escalate. I was told that I needed to *apologize*.
  • This is so mistargeted it defies belief.
  • The people who distill children's whole lives and deaths to a pathetic excuse for random twitter mobbing-do you think *they* look good here?
  • The person who spotted a Hillary donor and immediately launched into a screaming fit about blowing up kids - did you tell them to step back?
  • The dozens who felt my material support against Trump merited disgusting accusations all day - did you tell them to take a twitter break?
  • The people who think their arcane political philosophy justifies this ugly, reckless, protracted flailing - did you tell them to calm down?
  • The person who sees a Hillary supporter and accuses them of child murder - did you think their emotions were getting the better of them?
  • The person who responds to someone working to defeat Trump with 'you love bombing hospitals' - did you once suggest that they de-escalate?
  • The people who spent all day telling me I literally murder children and love doing it - did you even once tell them they need to apologize?
  • The answer is, hurtfully and disappointingly, no. I didn't see that from many people I consider friends.
  • Instead those friends genuinely felt I should make concessions, show patience and kindness, and apologize for what I did to these people.
  • Apologize. For what *I* did. To *them*.
  • You told me to take the high road. The road I took was positively stratospheric compared to what these awful people do habitually.
  • You told me to be the better person here. I was already the better person here, which required no intentional action on my part.
  • You told me I was driving away people who admire me. Do you actually believe it would be more admirable for me to act like this vicious mob?
  • You told me this is just how these people are - a blithe acceptance and excuse of stark harassment, something you extend to them for that.
  • And at the same time you refuse to offer that blanket acceptance to me even when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to be excused.
  • You told me these people would be hurt by what I said to them. But you didn't tell them I would be hurt by their mass harassment.
  • To those who did this - I consider you good friends, and people of good values who do good works. I admire you. I long have, and still do.
  • But in your handling of this, you didn't exhibit what I consider friendship.
  • What you prized over this was making peace with people who'd behaved maliciously and hatefully toward me, and keeping them comfortable.
  • And then you told me that I need to just let this go.
  • Why would you think that any of this is something that I would let go?
  • You're asking me to let go of the expectation that you'd treat me better than this.
  • Anyway, beyond that. If you actually did think their arguments were serious or valid, they're not. They can be dissolved, easily.
  • The structure of their arguments is flexible and nonspecific enough that its blanks can be filled in with nearly any level of grandstanding.
  • Consider this a demo reel.
  • My donations to Hillary aren't paying for drones killing children-they're paying for programs providing generators to impoverished villages.
  • You don't want me to donate to Hillary? You aren't donating to Hillary? You're allowing children to freeze to death.
  • I can't believe you support letting innocent children freeze to death. That's appalling and you should know better.
  • Your support of letting children freeze to death is so abhorrent that you really do deserve to have me and my friends scream at you all day.
  • Excuse me, how can you just dismiss this? You need to show some respect. Try and listen and understand.
  • If you have a problem with this you probably need to calm down, step back, and have a twitter break. This really isn't making you look good.
  • I honestly expected better of you. You're disappointing so many people who look up to you.
  • (Pardon me, just need to circulate some more screenshots and memes about how you absolutely love stuffing third-world children in freezers.)
  • Okay, back! Have you gotten a hold of yourself and learned how to make nice yet?
  • Why are you so upset?
  • [Act 2.]
  • So you think drone warfare is horrible and causes far too many deaths of innocent civilians.
  • Too many? As opposed to what? Are you really going to double down on saying there's some number of civilian deaths that you're fine with?
  • You care so little about lives of innocent middle easterners that you'll pick some number of them you're just fine with being blown apart.
  • About what I'd expect from a liberal.
  • I don't see you saying a single word against naval destroyers shelling villages and fighter jets dropping bombs.
  • You'd rather sit here on twitter going on about drone strikes all day and not giving a shred of care toward any other civilian deaths.
  • Clearly you're okay with that. That's disgusting. I can't believe you'd support that.
  • You're totally happy when innocents are killed in war as long as it's not because of a drone.
  • Hey angry twitter clique, look at this fucking imperialist being so glib about civilian deaths.
  • You don't take this seriously? Fascist. Those people had family. Those people had mothers.
  • I can select literally any threshold of collateral civilian deaths that I want and if you don't agree on that precise threshold you're evil.
  • Evil enough to be worth screaming at for a day about how you absolutely love the deaths of middle easterners in America's wars.
  • Lemme tag my friends in just to repeat it a few hundred times in case you didn't get the message. Fascist. Liberal. Child killer.
  • You absolutely deserve to be treated this way.
  • 06:09 ~fin~

Replies

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Zinnia_Jones/2016-10-18_Tweetstorm&oldid=63333"