The start of year 2016 culminated in my near non-use of LinkedIn and the start-use of Twitter.
Experiencing LinkedIn as being the ‘Facebook for the unemployed or underemployed’, my main objective being to find a real marketing and/or operational opportunity that ultimately lead to not finding such, and with LinkedIn’s platform change bringing in a new kind of audience, my main purpose for using LinkedIn’s platform ended.
Navigating to learn how Twitter works was admittedly difficult. The simplistic platform is so bleak it took 20+ tweets to realize I was tweeting at myself. To me, Twitter is the Mac version of Windows… and I’ve yet to buy or work on a Mac product since returning Apple’s “digital hub” 2001 80MB iPod, having been unfairly charged with a 10% restocking fee ($40), and self proclaiming individual protest against the cultish-like lifestyle brand company.
Damn you Steve Jobs! The arrangement was for you to mail an apology letter so that we could move forward …But your ass has been elevated to high heaven and now I’m stuck with this one-sided conviction: My integrity to be thrown out the door should I cave and purchase a Mac product.
But enough about that …Mr. Jobs, like it or not, you will conduct business with Mr. Sage in another universe.
So back to Twitter, eventually I got to understand the functionality of the “Twittersphere” or “Twitterverse.” However I was taken aback by the lack of social decorum. Among many benefits, Twitter tends to service journalist while providing micro-links leading to news and websites. But within Twitter is another element: An odd vibe – these current developments of secondary stories about how people have reacted to any event.
The inflammatory or otherwise socially inappropriate messages posted on Twitter fascinated me. Was this platform a means to vent; perhaps propagandize for service to the altered multifaceted individual? If so, is it healthy? Could Twitter be a means of maintaining civility in the reality; creating fake, pseudonymous, avatars to allow the conscience to rest?
My natural curiosity lead as a marketer, analyzing the communication and psychology to investigate people’s perceptions, rationale and behavior. In my mind I was wearing a white lab coat, tweeting strategic messages toward studied on-air personalities (or personas) across various news outlets.
One year into this personal experiment brought an unknowing metamorphosis. I realized I became one of my many test subjects. Today, in my mind, I’m still wearing a white lab coat, but changes to often habits has assumed to the form of a Master Splinter-like creature.
When And How I Realized The Mutation:
January 1- 2 of 2017: Early in the day Chris Cuomo (@) of New Day on CNN tweeted (in my opinion) a rear sentiment that I believed would help the Democratic party; in turn bring strength and unity to this nation. Noticing Mr. Cuomo was getting backlash from liberal minded people, I pounced without thought or any reservation, tweeting to perceived naysayers.
The Fantasy: Support Mr. Cuomo. Have his back. Mr. Cuomo might someday review tweets and see how a Republican was there when left-wing nutjobs where attempting to invalidate his point. By winning over Chris Cuomo I would have made him more tolerate of Republican values and mindsets. Also, be as Mahatma Gandhi said: “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
(Yeah, I know, Ghandi was a Socialist and a Communist … but the poor bastard was also sex and food deprived… cut him some slack. Mahatma Gandhi possessed a good heart and his teachings brings positive values and enriches life.)
Anyhow, a (so thought) petulant few responders responded. Twitter messages coming at me in rapid succession concerning different topics from different points of views.
And the adrenaline hits!
I’m in fight mode. Reacting; not responding. The brighter the counter tweet received, the sharper my arguments. The snappier or outrageous a message received, the more perceptive and cunning my reaction. The goal, lead or reframe arguments so that these poor bastards are cornered; better, make Libtard contradict him or herself. If an insult is received, drawback, the person is erratic and it’s of no service for either of us to continue.
One of these (so thought) petulant but very thoughtful responses came from a new, never seen handle, @gregstevens. (The handle(r) even offered a link to a post.)
Okay, fine, I’ll bit. A quick review while in battle mode, wanting to win, not engage in meaningful conversation. The dialogue ends, so does the adrenaline.
It’s now mid-day Monday January 2, 2017, I’m reviewing my reactions, reflecting how poor or well I may have performed in these Twitter battles. And then I saw it! The sight offered more than a visual cue as there was this moment of feeling destruction and clarity, combined.
“Oh yeah… this one… who’s this guy?” and “A strong writer, he was” were some of my thoughts. So for the first time I’m on @gregstevens’ main feed. “He’s verified? Wait?… What? WTF did he write to describe himself?”
Atheist – Satanist – Feminist – Leftist – Activist. The five WORST words within the English language!
I’m thinking now ( my own voice) …”Oh no! Oh! No! No! No!” But now I’m hearing my grandmother warning in Sicilian, “The Devil takes on many forms, don’t touch Riccardo.”
(But what does a curious mind who seeks knowledge do …He opens Pandora’s box.)
OH FUCK NO! Some title posts read like Devil worship!!!
Now Im in Nonna’s head. “Nel nome del Padre, e del Figlio, e dello Spirito Santo. Amen. Apostles Creed Io credo-
in Dio, Padre, Onnipotente creatore del cielo-
E DELLA TERRA E IN GESŮ CRISTO, SUO UNICO FIGLIO, NOSTRO SIGNORE-
NOPE! That’s it! I walk away from the screen. Oh no! New Year, New Rick. Nope! Nope!
But he purports to be a Scientist (Really?)
(The [so thought] Devil worshipper is definitely a strong writer [I have to give him that]. How many degrees? Oh Crap! )
Recognition. Reconciliation. Recovery.
Stretch. Get some grub. Pet the dog. Go out for a jog. Thinking: “I think I saw a post about gender within that website …or was it about social construct? Ugh! I am fascinated with the subject. He is gay. There has to be some common ground.”
But I’m totally bias. I know this.
I needed prophetic intercessor from Nonna to deal with the shock.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017: Now thinking while reviewing Twitter: “What did President Elect Trump tweet now? Wonder if House Representative Grace Meng’s office responded to my outcry regarding Republicans proposed weakening of the independent Office of Congressional Ethics bill. Rep. Meng’s aides are pretty responsive. Nah. Not yet.”
I’m bored and I think to myself: “You know, if I’m secure with my positions and I’m seeking to up my mental capability, I should be able to read that Mr. Stevens’post.”
And so I read the post. It was balanced. It was constructive. It was well argued and written. (“Damn This Recycled Teenager To Death!”)
I then move onto reading comments, which are sometimes more fascinating than a piece, itself.
OMG! This (so thought) uber Libtard is getting shit thrown at him from an even bigger Libtard, by the title Narcissa Smith-Harris19. How is this even possible?
And now I’m chucking inside. This is crazy. So I comb the sight. Mr. Stevens vlogs?
Mike Cernovich (@): One of the most annoying people- ever! Mike’s a major douchebag; self centered, shallow, and predictable. Mike’s the kind of guy that insists upon himself. Mike is a part of my Republican camp but I (kinda) wish he weren’t …I’d crush that troll if I were less than.
Yeah. Greg got that post right. But there’s so many questions.
What’s wrong with today’s thought leaders? Why won’t they ask the harder questions?
So, even though I’m just Rick, it’s with a fighter’s mentality and with curiosity that I go into a analytics, left-minded, feminist, trans and meditate on the questions I wish to know.
An Offer. New Considerations.
~Sent to Mr. Greg Stevens~
“If I look at the regulatory cultural practices and ask if in fact the cultural regulation of gender may not have pathogenic implication; might gender be making me ill, diminish me, dull me. In this regard, under feminist theory, has repeatedly pointed to the ways in which normative gender inscription established divisive family systems, and problematic child-rearing practices.
If so, and I consider how modern reappraisal of homosexuality pointed to the ways in which normative conscription leads to a social life that is also gender unlivable for many, then why hasn’t the social construct considered gender by way of kinship?
To narrate the questions I have to employ Freudian language. Using the model of Oedipal Theory as a means to understand the scenario of family life (the unique and blended scene of unconscious wish and conscious imagination) but not as a fixed social structure, a universal fundamental language, a determining symbolic order, or as a primordial law; shifting in accord of modern cultural practices and evolving symbolic systems, I can’t presume that gender unfolds with a psychically specific heteronormative domestic story.
I can’t presume that gender produces like gender; fathers transfer masculinity to son, mothers transfer femininity to daughters.
Think, how masculinity and femininity precedes parents and children.
Think, how do governing norms assert and insert into the physic?
Think, how do they regulate the family and the child?
Think, how do they move into the family, into the child?
Think, how do they move in a manner that is in thought, constituted, naturalized?
Leading to question, how does gender get disrupted, challenged, broken by the psychic specificity of any given child, and the unique social world of any given family?”