I was on Twitter for about sixteen months. I started using Twitter at the suggestion of a popular Conservative who said something about Conservatives needing to be there and on other “Social Media outlets” because that’s where we “take the fight to” the opposition (progressives/liberals).
I fell for it for a while. I’m not saying that the Conservative who said it was trying to make me “fall for” something. Quite the opposite, I’m sure. However, I am saying that it’s something that, when I thought about and did some research into it, I decided was the exact WRONG thing to do.
Thinking about it and looking into it, I decided that “Social Media” sites were not for me because in using them I am lending my name to the owners of those sites.
Facebook’s owner most of us are familiar with.
Twitter’s major owner is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and using Twitter means that I lend my name (thus my credibility, my association) to someone who supports suicide bombers and beheadings and his company suggests terrorists for Twitter users to follow. Add to that the fact that he supported building the Ground Zero Mosque and after “donating” money to 9/11 relief,
“[T]he prince issued a press release blaming the 9/11 attacks on American support for Israel — while, as Alwaleed’s statement read, “our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of the Israelis.”
Blame America first. He’s linked to Al Qaeda and the guy who conspired to derail a Canadian train (who is tied to Al Qaeda). He may have a false charity that raises money but donates it to Al Qaeda, and the charity’s board is under indictment by the Treasury Department, too. To my way of thinking, none of those are things to which I wish to lend my name, and thus, my tacit endorsement. There are other things this guy has done, is suspected of doing, etc., but I’ll stop there.
In joining Twitter I was lending my name to him. I was advertising for him via telling people my Twitter name, linking to the articles I wrote on my own blog, on Girls Just Wanna’ Have Guns, and on the two other sites I sometimes write for. I helped him via publicizing my photos on my Flickr account by tweeting them. I was helping him use me as a number to get more business: “Advertise on my website, Twitter, and you’ll reach X million people!” One of those people was me, I am totally ashamed to say.
Where’s the “fight” in that?
Has he done a few “normal”, “acceptable” things? Yes. But that does not negate the bad he has done, financed, or endorsed. The good things do not undo his support of those who killed thousands on 9/11 then trying to rub our faces in it.
In order for that to do any good, be effective, or serve any purpose whatsoever there’d have to be a few conditions met. First, they’d have to realize that we were there to do so. Second, they’d have to give a rat’s patootie that we were there to do so. Third (and most importantly), we’d have to be able to take the battle directly to them, not just to the stand-ins and wannabes. “Taking the fight to them”, IMHO, would be better done via personal websites and each person doing their own research, writing and posting because it is in THAT we will find the “Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth”. The more of us who put a website up with the truth for our families and friends to read deeply, via links or our own writing, the better the fight. That’s also where the other side is weakest.
Twitter uses 140 characters as their limit. There are not a lot of complex ideals, powerful thoughts, strong arguments that can be posited in 140 character shots. No, Twitter is more useful for zingers (not the Hostess kind, the verbal barbs and jabs), posting news, photo and other links, as well as friendly conversations. Deep political or religious discussions are difficult, disjointed and cumbersome, so “taking the fight to them” works about as well as eating spaghetti through a straw. It can be done, but it’s not a practical process. Whereas progressives are best suited for that sort of format with their ad hominem attacks and grammar school “arguments”.
Another reason to I got off of Twitter was that I noticed a seeming pattern of discrimination. Being no fan of the current occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., I admit to having aimed a few sharp barbs his way. Every time I did more than one or two barbs, I started getting “malfunctions” on the site. If I did quite a few barbs against the president (or Democrats in general) I’d get suspended. The Terms of Agreement at the time I joined didn’t give them the “right” to shut down accounts that got too negative toward any government (being an American company, one would be surprised to find out that it still happens). But whenever I was on Twitter, I knew (as did most of the Conservatives I knew on Twitter) that Conservatives had a smaller leash to run to the end of than did liberals/progressives.
Liberals/progressives used horrible, crude, rude names for women or men and threaten people’s lives and wish death on Conservatives’ children and that’s okay with Twitter. Say anything negative about this president and, BAMM!, you’re suspended for three days. Maybe that, too, should say something about the president, but it also tells us something about Twitter: Free Speech is NOT guaranteed there. First Amendment need not apply. And the major shareholder? I wouldn’t even drink iced tea with him, much less want to associate my name with him.
The Bible states:
“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.” —Proverbs 22:1
I choose a good name that is not sullied by association. Twitter? Who needs it?