Timothy Snyder calls them Internet Triggers.

He explains that they're bad for democracy because they prevent us from thinking complex thoughts.

People see these Triggers on social media because they are directed at them. . .
This happens partly because of algorithms and partly because you tend to follow accounts that have built your trust by tweeting things you agree with.

People mindlessly repeat these triggers. They are then transformed into "repeaters of targeted memes" . . .
Snyder finds this terrifying because democracy depends on us having “some sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.”

A good example would be Tweeting this ⤵️after 768 indictments as part of an ongoing investigation during a pandemic. . . .
At best, it's a sloppy use of language. He probably didn't mean "there should be indictments."

He probably meant, "there is a particular indictment I am waiting for."

But is it really an indictment he wants?

The tweet (32.9K likes!) induces rage but really means nothing.
Some drivers of this should know better but talk off the top of their heads.

Some like the attention and/or profit from clicks.

Some are clueless, but have large accounts for reasons other than a nuanced understanding of what Rule of Law actually means.
Snyder also talks about how, in Orwell’s 1984, the fictionalized totalitarian government worked on reducing the number of words in the language.

Having each of us become repeaters of Internet Triggers accomplishes the same thing by reducing our ability to have complex thoughts.
Here's how I experience these Internet Triggers.

Leading up to the 2020 election, I knew that if I Tweeted ideas for how to turn out the vote, hoards of people tell me there was no point. They'd cite "elections experts" . . .
. . . who said it was super easy to flip votes. They then called me naive for believing that their votes would count.

Now I know that if I Tweet about the ongoing investigation, people will respond with "what is taking so long," or "Garland is corrupt and doing nothing."
This short thread on Internet Triggers dovetails with the blog post I did this weekend:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Feb 4
I've been hoping for a turning point (a split in the party) for years . . .but Trump still controls the RNC, and mostly they still line up.

I don't see a split until they suffer an electoral bloodbath, either because enough voters turn against them or Trump turns on the party.
The strength they have is in local elections. See my earlier Tweet about what's happening in Shasta County.

Infighting among leaders won't change what's happening at the base, and what's happening at the base is where the danger is.
In other words, even if big shots start turning on each other, these people will still be fighting for control of local election boards and local school boards.
sacbee.com/news/californi…
Extremists won't give up even if Trump goes down.
They need to LOSE elections at every level.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 4
I've been saying that the way to save democracy is through civic engagement, particularly at the local level.

The right-wing understands that.

Let me tell you what's been happening in Shasta County, CA.

sacbee.com/news/californi…
The extremists, backed by outside money, are working to take over county leadership including local boards.

They want to oust conservatives who are not "conservative" enough. . . meaning they are not reactionary coup-loving extremists.
thenation.com/article/politi…
These extremists know that Trump planned and supported that coup and they love him anyway.

They know he supports white supremacists and they love him anyway.

I want Trump indicted, but I don't delude myself into thinking indicting Trump will "save" democracy.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 3
Screenshot so I don't give airtime to people who trade on despair, even though it seems stingy of me to deny people such an easy route to popularity and attention.

Facts:

🔹Nobody knows what is happening inside the DOJ except people who work there.

1/
🔹People who speculate on what is happening based on evidence are, well, speculating.

🔹One problem is distinguishing fact from speculation.

🔹Here's the shocker: Just because someone is a well-known lawyer doesn't mean they are right when they speculate.

2/
🔹Another shocker: Not all lawyers are smart or good lawyers.

🔹It can be very difficult to distinguish legal facts from legal opinions. If you're a nonlawyer, this is harder than distinguishing facts or speculation.

Some things are legal facts. Others are legal opinions.

3/
Read 15 tweets
Feb 2
I think you mean "punished." Indictment simply means "charged with a crime" or accused.

People think Rule of Law requires that all people who break the law get punished. Nope. Let me explain.

A government needs a source of authority . . .
. . . sociologist Max Weber outlined 3 sources of authority.

The first traditional. This is the authority underlying monarchies.

Second is rule of law. This is the authority underlying democracy.

Third is what he called "charismatic leader."
Today we'd say "demagogue" or "strongman." This is the source of authority underlying fascist governments.

So if the source of authority is a body of law and not the whim of a king or the commands of a strongman, you have a democracy.

When rule of law breaks down . . .
Read 8 tweets
Feb 2
Person: There should be indictments by now!

Me: 768 indictments so far, including Steve Bannon and a recent indictment for seditious conspiracy. . .
in an investigation that is ongoing. . .
in less than a year, during a pandemic.

Person: NONE OF THOSE COUNT.
⤵️The Trump Org, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Allen Weisselberg, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, George Nader, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas. . .

Two impeachments.

The Mueller team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies.

But none of those count, right?
Wrong about what?

I've said what has happened already.
I make no future predictions.

Person #1: There have been no indictments.

Me: Yes there have been (and I list them)

Person #2: Will you admit you're wrong?

Read 27 tweets
Feb 1
Read this announcement carefully.

I doubt Trump wrote it, but the argument is "why do they need to pass a law against what we tried to do if what we tried to do was illegal?"

This is the attitude he has always had toward the law, and it's the attitude his father had.

1/
I'm not saying this will work as a defense.

As I said earlier, in the criminal context, most defenses fail (ask any criminal defense lawyer).

I'm saying that it's not an admission of guilt. It's a convoluted argument that what he wanted Pence to do wasn't illegal.

2/
In fact, the law that Democrats and a few others are trying to pass is to clarify the Electoral Count Act so people don't get the idea the vice president can win the election.

As I said earlier, Trump usually loses in court.
This is for the Court of Right-Wing Opinion.

3/
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(