An online stranger couldn’t possibly grasp your complexities; all they have are a few vague impressions of you, too meagre to form anything but a phantasm. So when they attack "you", they are really just attacking their own imagination, and there is no need to take it personally.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Quite an exaggeration here... Unless you have a split personality disorder, the way to speak to people (even strangers) *is* part of who you are. Not the whole you, but still a genuine part of yourself, not a "phantasm" as you suggest. Incomplete, but authentic.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @surreallyno
It's a genuine part of yourself, but also a simple, generic & decontextualised part of yourself. And, while this genuine, generic part of yourself is not a phantasm, the ramshackle being that is extrapolated from it is, because the only way to join the dots is with imagination.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I underestand but I still think semantics matter in clarifying a concept. People usually make credible, probable *assumptions* about you even on one-time interactions (e.g. if you are articulate and polite vs. rude and unable to spell/speak properly).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @surreallyno
Well, my credible, probable assumption about you, Christina, is that you're cool-headed enough to make reasonable estimations about people from their online activity. But I doubt most people have such a gift for dispassionate deduction, especially in the heat of political debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.