There’s a reason why I love this GIF as much as I undoubtedly do. I am an entertainer, like it or not. Whenever I plunge into a public space and decide to hold a specific opinion, there are undoubtedly consequences. If I make a particular decision to either embrace or ignore a particular voice? That person is going to react in a completely unpredictable fashion: I can’t see them, and only have the words they provide me as a prompt to how I in then turn again respond. So, I have to make a decision, based only on the history I have with the ‘name’ that’s attached to the Avatar. Sometimes you get it right, but sometimes you make mistakes. Often, what I see is often far more complicated and involved than the view of the person on the other side of the ‘fence’ Yesterday, the simple point that many people have tried to beat me with is that sex sells, and that’s all that matters. I know that’s only the tip of an enormous iceberg, and you can beat me with that outlook all day and night, but it will not change what I believe.
What I can’t do in 140 characters is either explanation or nuance, and yet people demand both. When they challenge me on tone and intent I’ll do the same, but ‘discussion’ on Twitter’s not unlike sex in the back of a car: it does the job, but it’s a poor substitute for somewhere with space to spread out. If people want to really understand what I am I ask them to challenge me in blogs and podcasts that most won’t read or listen to, because that’s not what matters to them. What these people crave is the moment, their terms but when they enter my space? I deliberately curate to make people work. Some might try and argue this is a sanitised space that I won’t argue in, but I know the truth is that you make conscious decisions based on the time you have available, the person you’re dealing with and you own sense of whether the interaction ultimately will have any benefit. If you consider me a pathetic fraud in a space you think I won’t visit, and then challenge me in my own that I won’t act in a fashion YOU find acceptable? I’d say you’re perhaps not coming to the table with open arms.
So, I choose to respond in long form and I say this. I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact I assumed things about you. If you think this was malicious or dismissive, it was neither. It was based on the words you used to me. Having looked at all the words you’ve used, I see no desire for a mutual discussion or appreciation, I gain only anger from the opinions you have presented. However, I harbour no ill-feeling. I’ve watched all the exchanges you’ve had with me and with all of these considered? I’m surprised you still follow me. However, I’m not a fool. When asked ‘do you remove people who agree with you or only those that argue?’ The answer is simple: I don’t have to do either. Those who agree choose to stay, those that argue (in 95% of cases) leave of their own volition. I curate, in more than 90% of cases, those people who just don’t take part.
For the 5% who fight, amazingly some come back. I’ve apologised to a few too and they’ve returned as a result, because I’m not a twat and when I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. If the person apologises and I am convinced they’re still going to fight? Nope, not happening. That leaves the 10% of people who I’ll decide aren’t really contributing anything other than noise, vitriol or trying to get me to notice them. I might get some of those wrong too, because it happens. Mostly, I am comfortable my curation is effective. That’s my choice, and in the end you don’t get to control either that or me, because in the end the buck needs to stop somewhere.
Sometimes, Tweets aren’t enough. However, in a surprising number of cases, they are more than enough to understand that some people, once you interface with them, will never agree with you, however hard either of you try.