Thursday, May 10, 2012

Why I (usually) delete @replies on Twitter

You might notice that after we have a conversation on Twitter, if you check your timeline/mentions a month or two later, my replies might be gone.  I assure you this is NOT a sign of disrespect.  It's actually a deliberate choice, that was echoed in this guy's explanation:

The relevant portion of what he wrote is here:

I use Twitter as a smaller, creative outlet. I share links, write bad jokes and occasionally troll my followers for fun. I also obsessively delete replies after I am sure the person it is directed to has read it. When someone visits my Twitter profile for the first time I want them to decide whether to follow or not based on the content I produce, not the conversions I have with other users.

This is a good explanation for me (although I don't like to troll readers, so that's out).  I delete my own replies on Twitter because I like the notion that someone coming to my timeline for the first time can get a read on what kind of content I produce. 

The thing is, replies are just that -- my almost-private response to someone.  Once I know, or can reasonably expect, that they've seen it, I'm good.  If you see it because we both follow the same person, great.  But it's not there for everyone else.  It's just there to reply, and then I clear it out.  Apparently, and I didn't know this initially, many twitter comics clear replies out during the day too.  I think I put out some funny stuff, but it's not all meant as jokes.  Interesting, regardless.

I felt like I needed to post this, to explain why you won't see many replies left in my TL.  The usual exception to this rule is if my reply to a person furthers the point of a previous tweet, or stands on its own as content I'd like to use as an example of what I put out there.

A deletion is not in any way meant disrespectfully to the person I was replying to, and as you can see, it's a legitmate social media strategy.  My reply was meant just for YOU (unless I do the .@ thing).  So once I know you've seen it, I'll often delete, and feed my OCD need for a clean TL, as well as for the reasons above.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Getting Government out of the marriage business, and other Republican Strawmen

After last night's vote in NC adding "Amendment One" to the state Constitution, I have been seeing convservatives on Twitter now attacking a compromise position, i.e., Getting Government completely out of the marriage business.  Their arguments rely on strawmen.  They declare that it's a brainless idea, because after all . . . Taxes!  Child custody!  Fire!  Ducks!  Pancakes!  Anarchy!  But these are just strawmen arguments designed to end debate and go back to fightin' those pesky gays.

First, no one is credibly saying that we should take all licensing of ANY kind of union out of the government's hands, except, perhaps Ron Paul and his supporters (who are REPUBLICAN).  As much as I sympathize with many Libertarians who also hold this view, I see the need to still have some predictability when it comes to taxes, child custody, etc.  So with respect to the Ron Paul folks, I'll simply say that I disagree with you, but have nothing but respect for your position.

Anyway, all that would happen, under the suggestion that I support, is that the Government would license all Unions as "Civil Unions," without discriminating against whether they were same or different sex Unions.  The Government gets its license fee, contracts/child-care/custody/taxation but still has something to point to and say, "Yes you two are together, so we can understand that you want a tax break (or penalty!) etc. etc."

Also, the benefit to the compromise is that it avoids (continual) losses in Court finding that prohibiting Gay Marriage violates the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.  I'm not aware of a SINGLE court that has ever upheld banning gay marriage, and said that was A-OK under the Equal Protection Clause.  And don't give me that "THEY ARE ALL LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!oneone"  That's nonsense.  Your position doesn't hold up in Court, in the intellectual crucible.

If the compromise were in place, you'd then have some fairly easy scenarios:

1)  If you were religious, and wanted to really drive home the point that you were together, you'd go to a church/temple/mosque/whatever and get MARRIED.  The license would provide that you could go do that.  Or, after obtaining the license, you could do it at the courthouse.  Whatever.  Your church would call you "married," and you could call yourself that if you wanted.  The Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union.

2) If you were Gay and religious, you could see if your church would marry you.  If your place of worship would not marry you, then tough luck.  You joined a place that looks on you as second class.  Maybe you ought to pick a different religion/place of worship.  You still have a Courthouse, or even a Country Club, to go have your wedding.  The Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union, just like Scenario #1.

3)  If you were NOT religious, then go get married/joined/hitched or whatever, and have a party.  Nothing would stop you from the colloquial "married," any more than anyone else.  You could call yourselves married, whatever.  But the Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union, just like Scenarios #1, and #2.

See that?  Equality?  Or does it burn you, social conservatives?  Like sunlight on Gollum?

Answer me this:  Why would it bother you SO MUCH if the Government thought of you the same way it thought of a gay couple, if only in terms of taxes and contracts?  Does that upset you SO MUCH that you couldn't allow a gay couple to enjoy the same happiness you have?  Really?

Do you NEED a pronouncement from the Government that you are "married?"  That WORD?  You really NEED that from the Goverment, is that your argument?  Because, there are a LOT of social conservatives that seem to want LESS Goverment, but on THIS issue (wow, that involves gays and religion), you suddenly will have a self-esteem crisis if Uncle Sam doesn't refer to your union as a marriage?  That's nonsense.

What this boils down to is pure hatred dislike of the gay lifestyle.  Some married couples don't WANT Gay couples saying they are "Married."  It irks them.  They, for some reason, want to hold it above Gays that they can do something Gays can't.  That's ludicrious.  Would your marriage's sanctity be SO affected if Gays had a church (like Unitarian), or a ceremony, and then called themselves "married?"  Would that bother you SO MUCH?  If it does, seriously, on that point, like it or not, you're a bigot.

So the conservatives out there who deride "getting government out of the marriage business" as leading to chaos without regulation are just arguing against a strawman.  No one is credibly saying that.  You just can't stand that Gays might be on equal footing with you, despite that pesky Constitution (hi Tea Partiers!) guaranteeing equality.

I'm done.  I kept trying to share links on Twitter, and then would see idiots Tweeps making some really intellectually dishonest strawman arguments about marriage, and the supposed call for NO government regulation of it.  I figured rather than search anymore, I'd write my own.