I try to avoid using Twitter but I have two problems. The first is that I like it as a source of news. The second is that I like to keep in touch with people I perhaps naively think I know and like.
The fault with the platform ā and perhaps all social media platforms ā is one of tone. Iām happy to engage with people if they read my work or look at my cartoons. What I really donāt like is the micro-aggression, the people who arrive at my content with a snarl and ready to spit bile over my shirt.
Let me explain this from the other side. When somebody writes something I donāt agree with, my habitual response is to begin with a point I agree with. Sometimes itās simply to acknowledge that thereās an alternative point of view that somebody happens to hold (āI see where youāre coming from and might agree exceptā¦ā). The point is, I begin with a point of agreement because I donāt want to come across as one of those hugely opinionated arseholes who wonāt listen to a different point of view. That doesnāt mean Iām not a hugely opinionated arsehole who wonāt listen to a different point of view but I try to hide that from the world because the last thing I want is for another person to feel that griping sensation in the pit of their stomach because theyāre about to enter into a Twitter fight.
And I do mean a griping sensation. I feel it every time.
I guess if you read this blog regularly you will have a fairly good sense of who I am by now. Iām prone to over-sensitivity and get hurt very easily. Iām fairly serious in my convictions but open minded and try to understand the world as far as my limited abilities will take me. I can be too arrogant at times but also my tendency to humility can stray into self-loathing. Yet a lack of confidence is the real mind killer. I can go from being outwardly engaged to inwardly dwelling far too quickly. I despise the knot I feel in my stomach.
I guess I donāt like conflict and I donāt like losing control of my temper because the moment I do that, I know Iāve lost.
Twitter, however, doesnāt seem to have many people like me or, rather, the strangers that reply to my tweets tend not to be too polite. I write articles ā which these characters are usually too lazy to read ā and theyāll reply with some nonsense in response to the title (which, as I must always repeat, I donāt get to write). āWhat rubbish!ā is the general tenor of their reply or it will be some insult along the ātypical libtard!ā or āSuch a snowflakeā, which doesnāt fill me with good will.
Rarely Iāll block this kind of reply but sometimes I do, even though I know that hands the advantage to the other side because theyāll take great delight in being blocked. Yet itās not a block because Iām incapable of fighting my corner. Itās just that I canāt be arsed.
A friend rang me today and told me a story of a taxi trip theyād taken this morning. In addition to the taxi driver boasting about how much money he earns (far more than my friend, hugely more than me), they said something like āOh, no need to wear a mask in here. Itās all good. The virus was made by the government in order to thin out the populationā¦ā
I asked my friend what they said and they just sighed. āWhat could I say? How can you answer that?ā
They had a point. What can you say? Life sometimes needs a block function.
As Iām sure has said many times, the problem with social media is the āsocialā part. There was a time when there was always a āthemā and an āusā. To be crude and elitist about it (and I honestly donāt know a better way of describing it), there was a time when educated people didnāt mix with people who were straightforward crazy or stupid. Social media made us all equal. Suddenly you have astrologers emailing astronomers to tell them where they have it wrong.
I was reminded of this (and sorry if this is turning into another rant) when I spotted the story that Dara OāBriainās Stargazing Live has been cancelled by the BBC. Heād responded with disbelief and noted that the BBC are paying Scarlett Moffatt money to record a podcast in which she discusses conspiracy theories with her boyfriend Scott Dobinson (I have no idea who these people are, btw).
Click here to listen to why the moon landings were fake.
A few synopses of other episodes of āScarlett Moffatt Wants to Believeāā¦
āCan Scarlett prove to Daisy and Scott that the pyramids were built by time travellers?ā
āAre mermaids real? And why are fish so sexy?ā
āIs Prince Charles a vampire? Are the royal family descended from alien lizards?ā
Maybe Iām missing the joke. Perhaps this is some clever way to engage with this nonsense in order to debunk them. If so, then I think itās mistaken.
I used to be a supporter of the BBC and catch me on a good day I still amā¦ But I feel the last dregs of my support slipping away with every passing week. Tim and I have recorded 67 episodes of our podcast for which I can honestly say weāve not earned a single penny. Call it sour grapes if you want (it is) but, for fuckās sake. Iāve sent so much material to the BBC over the years, never had a crumb of support back, just tediously āright onā messages telling me how they āhelp writers from non-traditional backgroundsā.
Theyāre probably right. āScarlett Moffatt Wants to Believeā is a perfect example of that. Moronic drivel that perpetuates the myth that all us working class northerners are as thick-as-shit.
Sorry. *Now* Iām getting angryā¦
Better leave it here. I was going to swing back to my original point but I guess Iāve made my point. How does a moderately sane reasonable person engage with this world except with a howl of derision?
Just done my catch-up read. Enjoyed it and agreed with most of it. Off to go on howling with derision now.
Thank you and, please, howl away. š
If the BBC hadn’t become a political football, I think it would already be well on the way to being a subscription service by now, and rightly so. It isn’t about bias, or whether you should have a state broadcaster, it is about whether people should be taxed, on pain of criminal charges, to subsidise the viewing habits of others. The answer in my view is no. If it is as well loved as is claimed then its revenue loss would be tiny if it went to a subscription model.
I think you’re right, though part of me does believe in the role of government and a part of that part of me believes there’s a role for a public broadcaster. The problem is that it’s too big and seems to think that its role is to entertain. I have no problem with news and documentaries and even educational programming coming out of taxation. There’s even a role for it in serious drama/creative industries. I do have a problem with the much bigger thing the BBC thinks it’s paid to do. In no reasonable world should a state broadcaster pay anybody more than Ā£100,000 to do their job. They should help develop talent in the regions. They should not be creating monopolies in London where people have 20 year careers on high wages just to make quips in crappy panel shows that never seem to end…