1/ If you could magically decompose arguments on twitter, I think you'd see something like, - 99% are arguments about agenda; and, - 1% are arguments about facts in evidence.
-
Show this thread
-
2/ (By agenda, I don't mean nefarious simplifications. I mean, specifically, schedules of topics for discussion.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
3/ This decomposition tool does not (yet) exist. And, because the medium is high-throughput and ephemeral, it's very easy to loose perspective and not recognize you're making agenda arguments while thinking you're just "debating the facts."
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
4/ There are lots of reasons for this (e.g., bad faith actors, callout culture, escalating generalized distrust, the presumption of polarization, etc). But, for me, trying to do the mental decomposition before expression, interpretation, or judgment is helpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
5/ P.S. Yes, agendas do matter very much. Getting to choose what and when things get discussed is very often strategic manipulation and the application of power. But, outside of outrage surfer accounts (e.g., Ben Shapiro et al), it's also very often just fast-and-frugal reflex.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
6/ P.P.S. If agendas do matter and you're calling out bad faith/manipulative actors... ...you're allocating time to their agenda.
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.