Oh no, not refusing to denounce
I saw this:
Half the people on this site genuinely sound like they are in a cult. And it's always with this really passive-aggressive sanctimony — "Oh man, I'd hate to see you find yourself in a situation where random assholes on the internet disown you because you liked the wrong tweet." https://t.co/78v1KSxjTB
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) February 1, 2019
So I laughed and then I found the conversation. It’s classic.
JESSE HAS KNOW VIEWS ON ISSUES AND IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT PUBLICATIONS LET HIM WRITE ON THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH THOSE VIEWS AND NO I AM NOT "FREAKISHLY ENTITLED" WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN
— AccomplishedTheHat (@Popehat) January 31, 2019
You should block me. I’m going to say a lot of things you will think are a bad look.
— AccomplishedTheHat (@Popehat) February 1, 2019
I don’t accept the premise and am not interested in discussing it with you.
— AccomplishedTheHat (@Popehat) February 1, 2019
The presumption of it is so staggering and yet so typical. “I don’t want to argue, I just want to demand that you explain to me why you converse with someone I, a total stranger, consider a Thoughtcriminal.”
Did I stutter?
— AccomplishedTheHat (@Popehat) February 1, 2019
Look at that. Already he’s at “Are you at least willing to admit” – as if he were a fucking cop or prosecutor and Popehat were a suspect. Why the fuck should Popehat “admit” anything, especially to a sanctimonious goon like that?
So of course he dials it up even more.
Do you spend s lot of time demanding other people denounce folks? Do you see that as normal?
— AccomplishedTheHat (@Popehat) February 1, 2019
Belligerence and intellectual dishonesty! (And it’s tack, not tact.) For simply saying no I’m not interested in having this conversation with you. And complaining that he refuses to denounce. These people are so creepy; I can just never get over it. Lives spent monitoring other people’s tweets for perfect orthodoxy, and accusing them of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to play the stupid game.
Only when they choose to openly defend them out of the blue and without reason, drawing themselves into protracted arguments with multiple people and refusing to give a straight answer to any of them. It leads to a certain impression of where you stand.
— Topher Mathrusse (@TVMathrusse) February 1, 2019
Torquemada has spoken. On your knees.
Wow! That’s all I’ve got. Just, Wow!
One of the things I both like and dislike about Ken White is that he has the strength of character to stare down a person who doesn’t like what he says and say ‘fuck you’. *
Actually he usually says ‘snort my taint’, but you get the jist.
This kind of thing reminds me of how Twitter is really its own kind of world.
I looked for some recent stats, and this internet marketing blog (which I would think would tend to err on the high side) cites estimates that 24% of American adults use Twitter. That’s…. really not that many, for a service that has been around for quite a while. But the same site notes that “80% of Twitter users are affluent millennials,” and that tells us something.
These are the people for whom the phrase “extremely online” was invented. They have a perverse sense of entitlement and a distorted sense of which opinions are actually prevalent, as well as of who the fuck cares about their opinions or their implied threats.
“I don’t accept the premise and am not interested in discussing it with you” is an excellent answer. In a number of circumstances.
I like that ‘..belligerence and intellectual dishonesty people accuse you of…’ bit. Shades of ‘A lot of people are saying’.
It was the “Are you at least willing to admit some of the things he espouses are at least in the vein of discrediting trans people and their lived experiences?” formulation that made me snort. As if such a vague question could possibly be the beginning of any useful dialogue, rather than the beginning of some clumsy gotcha attempt. Why not just go with “Are you at least willing to consider the possibility that Singal may be somewhat analogous to a witch?”
Yep, this sure looks familiar.
Q: “Do you spend s lot of time demanding other people denounce folks? Do you see that as normal?”
A: Yes. Very much yes. They’re fucking creepy.
Also, Topher, despite claiming to be a long time fan of Popehat, has apparently never noticed how highly Popehat values free speech and how he has defended even people he dislikes and disagrees with. Hmmmm. Topher May have missed the point. That or he believes that no one could possibly disagree with him because of the evident rightness of his cause, even sans arguments.
Screechy @ 3 – I read something similar just the other day – that Twitter is not even close to Facebook on the universally-adopted scale, but that that changes when it comes to media people, which is why all media people feel they have to use it (and do have to use it if their jobs require it, which is often the case).
Which is funny because I keep hearing that Facebook is for old people and everyone else is on Snapchat.
Also to instablock you on Twitter if you dispute his justification for calling someone a cunt. As he did to me. Which surprised me. Yes I was disputing a thing he said, but I wasn’t doing it in the manner of Topher Inquisitor Dude, and the block was instantaneous (unlike with Topher Inquisitor Dude!). It was weird.
Nevertheless I’m a big fan of his replies to Topher Inquisitor Dude.
Okay, I actually laughed at that exchange. Obligatory addition to the comment thread: I have never found anyone named “Topher” to be anything but a dudebro. It’s usually an abbreviation from “Christopher”, I’ve found, but they’re too cool to go with “Chris”.
I love how flummoxed he was by the fact that Ken White didn’t instantly fold and start apologizing. He’s clearly used to people cringing the moment he throws an x-phobe accusation in their direction.
Never heard the name Topher before. Thank’s to James Garnett I understand it’s a contraction of Christopher. Is this new? Perhaps I need to get out more.
I’ve encountered it before, though not often. I think there might be some actor or similar who goes by Topher.
You may be thinking of Topher Grace, who played the lead character in That 70s Show, and Eddie Brock in the regrettable Spider-Man 3.
Could be, although I know nothing about any of them.
The Regrettable Spider-Man! Even I would watch that. :-))
In The Regrettable Spider-Man, Peter Parker is a scientist whose DNA gets mixed up with that of a spider when he tries out his new matter transporter. No superpowers result, just a gradual, creepy transformation into a hideous human-spider-mutant.
I’m sold. Now we need a playwright. I don’t suppose anybody here knows of one? :-)