Keen to know how a hashtag celebrating the idea of the death of a living woman trended for over a day on this platform devoted apparently to the removal of hate speech.
I note some saying I've missed the nuance between calling for her actual death and the death of her career/credibility. This would be similar I guess to missing the nuance between "an author" and "one aspect of one of her characters".
I note also that one person said I'd swallowed the right-wing narrative. You see that a lot on here: no intellectual perspective, just stamping the point you don't agree with as "Wrong Tribe".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The celebration of an assassination by some on the identarian left even as it becomes clearer that the killer was meme-soaked in the Reddit culture of the online far right only serves to clarify how very adjacent these categorizations now are.
Or more simply: everything that happens now is because of the internet.
Reposting this for those confused about what the meme culture of the online far right might be.
David is still off Twitter, but he’s aware of the amazing messages some of you have posted about his Jews Don’t Count doc last night and is very thankful. It’s available on @All4 here channel4.com/programmes/dav…
That speech contained the words "to take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit." That's the key. The first actual real attempt to make the UK Singapore-on-Thames spectacularly failed. The entire shitty shit show needs to be seen in that light.
This came up on the Today programme this morning but quickly dismissed because "the country voted for it and we don't want to talk about that again." But thats like discussing why someone has lung cancer and saying "Lets not talk about the fact that they were a long-term smoker."
I'm watching @BBCnews now and @chrismasonBBC is talking about the astonishing nature of this collapse. Without mentioning Brexit again. It's not astonishing because *what she tried to impose was the logical conclusion of the Brexit ideal*.
Accountability is fine. What isn't fine is the idea that the main mechanism of accountability should be Twitter.
Because to do so ignores the performative-ness, the tribalism, the madness of crowds, the control of the space by Big Tech with their own interests, the lack of nuance - a 1000 things. Social media can generate social justice, obviously. And it can also generate pure bullying.
Jaron Lanier argues that what social media activates - what its economics thrive on - is the lizard brain which spectates most ferociously on conflict and on others humiliation. So. That in itself is a reason not to assume its moral direction of travel is always good.
Emmanuel Macron’s insight that Elizabeth II represented “a sense of eternity” is the best explanation I’ve so far read as to why she inspired this level of veneration.
Humans do, after all, always crave that sense, endlessly inventing myths to satisfy it. See: religion.
The present veneration was of course planned for years, from a time when people were reflexively deferential and no platform existed for dissenting voices. So there’s quite a dissonance between the wall to wall respect on mainstream media and some hardcore non respect on here.