1/ Grifters playing vitriol games exploit their supporters, not their proffered adversaries. I always forget this. Yes, the harm the latter, too. But, the exploited vulnerability is basically, "he's one of ours, we have to have his back no matter how fucking dumb he is."https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1095147537009426433 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ The con is pushing the limit far enough that you get intergroup, self-sustaining attention but not so far that you elicit an intragroup immune response. Except, once you've carved out your structural position, you're pretty safe (see: Steve King).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
3/ But, under all circumstances, the in-group *is* substantively harmed. Their social environment separates them from reality in an expensive way (see: QAnon and MAGA folks getting disowned, shoe stores going out of business they hate Kaepernick, etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
4/ The core is fine with this tradeoff. They're willing to purchase righteous indignation -- validated by the intergroup collisions -- at the expense of their wellbeing because it comes with a sense of order and purpose. But, this contaminates the whole environment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
5/ People worry about the effect of isolation on radicalization, and it is very important. But, the inter-group conflict and "LOL look at this dumb fuck" expressions are pretty important ingredient, too.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread
6/ "Ignore him" is good advice — if only it were tractable. Social media is designed to elicit these collisions to inflate engagements for resale. If you individually restraint yourself, it doesn't do anything. It's an HCI/CMC-problem -- and a business model feature, not a bug.
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.