Conversation

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.
3
29
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
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
9
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