okay idk how much of this was in response to 's whole "don't QT bad takes" thing but now i'm actually getting annoyed about the reverse, where people are subtweeting a distributed cloud of takes and i'm frustrated that they aren't being more specific
Conversation
Replying to
the first tweet itself does the thing i'm annoyed at other people for doing so here's a specific example. i don't want to QT but i can still screenshot. i do not agree with this insofar as he's talking about my tweets, and insofar as he's talking about someone else idk who
1
15
i literally cannot find the most recent example that annoyed me to either QT or screenshot but it was something about "(post)rats" badly reinventing things from first principles instead of reading books and i'm like
1) why not both
2) WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
1
1
16
i want to reject the claim that "(post)rats" are a unified cohesive group with a unified cohesive pov on anything and as long as people are going to talk shit i want people to nut up and talk shit about *specific other people and tweets*
2
29
i'm probably going to regret writing this but let's give being more annoyed a shot and see where it goes
3
19
Was Visa saying “don’t QT bad takes but still dunk on them” or “don’t give airtime to bad takes in any manner?”
1
4
he was specific about the former but he would probably agree with the latter
2
5
Show replies
I see this daily. Dunking without attribution is sometimes to avoid snitch-tagging (where power dynamics matter) but it ends of feeling like a dangling reference. "what did I miss?"
I think this is somewhat designed.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @dakami @alexstamos and @CubicleApril
Can't code switch if everyone is around. A kind of context collapse.
1
3
Ends up*
Yeah this is why I'm constantly in confusion about what the hell Twitter social norms actually are.