My patience for twitter disagreements really does top out at about 3 tweets. If you can’t decisively resolve the matter to your own satisfaction in 3 tweets, take it offline if you know them, or go off to think more on your own if you don’t, or just let it go.
Conversation
Trying to persuade the other party is a dumb goal and leaving them misunderstanding you is a perfectly fine exit condition. Save your persuasion battles for op-eds. Save your efforts to be seen and understood for people you know personally and care about.
1
2
14
A 3-tweet reply-argument limit is a good threshold. Beyond that, the chances of an enlightening outcome drop to near zero, and the chances that you’re being a derp-zombie desperately trying to absorb some life energy from bluechecks to convince yourself you’re alive skyrocket.
1
6
There’s of course a small chance you’re walking away smarmily pickling in self-satisfaction from a genuine learning moment, but it’s a risk worth taking. The opposite risk of becoming a derp-zombie is more important to avoid.
Derp-zombiehood is like BIRGing but for life energy.
1
3
But it’s important to get to at least 3 tweets on a few selected, rare battles. If you always quit at 0 or 1, chances are you’re in denial about something or afraid of particular arguments. Worth reminding yourself on occasion that you can throw a punch if the occasion demands.
1
10
Avoid the internet of beefs and the derp-zombiehood of a beef-only lifestyle, but don’t let yourself get so out of shape you can’t conflict with strangers at all.
1
1
9
I’m going to call this Twitter posture Be Slightly Beefy.
Original self-inspiration for this little thread
Quote Tweet
Replying to
arguably any position that you can't get a person to understand in three tweets (assuming they're acting in good faith which is a dodgy assumption) isn't ready for primetime
1

