The next chapter of my social media

Goodbye and good riddance, Twitter.

I began my boycott of Facebook over a year ago, after the company decided to fork its code base for the sake of preventing US customers from receiving any GDPR-style data privacy protections. While I was well aware that none of the data Facebook had already gathered about me could be deleted, I didn’t want to either 1.) give them any fresh data, or 2.) give their ads any eyeballs through my use of the site. (Ads that no one sees are just a waste of money. If enough advertisers decided they were wasting their money on Facebook, the company’s ad revenue would drop. Hence, my boycott.)

Being the loudmouthed ass🤬 that I often am, I couldn’t just stop sharing my points-of-view on whatever subject popped into my head that day. So, I decided to revisit Twitter. Initially, the experience was great: while there were still plenty of loudmouthed morons with whom to contend, the community felt less “fragmented” and therefore more open to differing viewpoints outside the Facebook echo chambers known as “Groups.”

This didn’t last forever. In what was probably a very predictable turn of events, discourse on Twitter since the release of the Mueller Report has become worse than ever. While many users are at least partially informed, far too many are as ignorant as Michigan’s Cathy Garnaat:

I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before[.] I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated.

Because of Republican talking points, many Americans are completely ignorant as to how the initial counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign began (the so-called “Steele Dossier” had nothing to do with it. It was George Papadopoulos drunkenly blathering to an Australian diplomat in London who then called US Intelligence Agents which prompted the initial FBI investigation, which led to Flynn lying, which led to Comey being fired, which led to Mueller being appointed and given the OSC’s mandate by Rosenstein. This isn’t a big secret—unless you’re ignorant, which is fine, but don’t then argue your incorrect “facts” when you have no sources to back them up. That’s the definition of “Fake News.” “Alternative facts” are falsehoods.)

Additionally, many people are either being willfully ignorant or genuinely do not understand the significance of Mueller’s decision to stick with Justice Department guidelines that say not to indict a sitting President. Mueller could not prove the case of “obstruction” (outlined in Volume II) because he could not bring a case to prove. In order to argue the merits of such a case, Mueller would have had to formally accuse the President of a crime. This is the definition of an “indictment.” One can not indict a sitting President. Therefore, Mueller could not accuse Trump of crimes; the “best” he could do with the evidence he uncovered was hand it off to a body outside of the DoJ: Congress. The statement Mueller gave when he explained this in detail and officially closed the OSC is as close as one can possibly get to an “impeachment referral”—which is also not a thing. A federal prosecutor charged with investigating possible crimes would recognize that telling Congress what to do is not his role, and that’s exactly what Mueller did: his role.

Further, in the wake of George Stephanopoulos’ interview with our so-called “president,” even Republican hard-liners like Lindsey Graham insisted Trump “walk back” his statements regarding foreign interference. But, the fact is that we currently have a sitting “president” who is not only apparently very willing to break the law—he doesn’t even know what the laws are. Given that the President—as head of the Executive Branch—is the nation’s “top cop,” the fact that Trump doesn’t even know when he’s talking about breaking the law should be alarming to any American that is not a total sycophant and/or braindead. Equivocating standard diplomatic relations with receiving “oppo research” from a foreign national either proves Trump is as dumb as a box of dry jello, or he believes you are (because you believe him, despite the ridiculousness of his statement.)

So, my inability to comment on anything in the news without people making remarks that are not just “ignorant” (I’m happy to provide sources to enlighten those willing to think outside their bubble) but unnecessarily insulting (the fact that I have provided sourced facts that don’t agree with your unsourced assertion does not make me “delusional.” It doesn’t necessarily make me right, but in order to determine that you’d have to provide a source that contradicts my comment. No matter how many times I ask, tweeters don’t generally do that.) has made using Twitter a completely unpleasant and seemingly pointless experience.

It’s also incredibly ignorant to view the world through a binary, “black vs. white” lens. E.g., if anyone disagrees with anything I say on Twitter, I’m automatically labeled a “socialist” or a “Democrat” or a “liberal” (to use the nicer terms). For the record: the only political party to which I have ever paid dues/been a member is the Libertarian National Party, and I am not currently an active member. I have never been a Democrat or Republican, officially or otherwise. I don’t even “lean” in one direction or the other: I strongly dislike many, many Democrats just as I do Republicans. I am a “non-partisan Independent;” that is, I don’t just belong to no political party: I firmly believe that political parties are a scourge to our democratic processes and that the nation would be much better off if we had no political parties at all. Instead, candidates with similar goals would form short-lived, grassroots caucuses that exist only as long as is necessary to accomplish their set goal. This would break the stranglehold of the entrenched Democratic/Republican duopoly and not only encourage, but require elected representatives of all stripes to work together on issues they personally believe to be the most important.

I don’t believe the government should control the “means of production”—the classic definition of “socialism”—nor does any so-called “Democratic Socialist” from whom I’ve heard. All I’m doing is stating a fact. I’m not saying, “I support Democratic Socialism.” Many Twitter users also assume that if you state a fact, you must agree with that ideology. That is not accurate and is a very small-minded way of looking at the world.

So, this is all a long and roundabout way of saying that I believe Twitter is just another source of the problems in the US today, and I no longer want to participate. Unfortunately for me (and, perhaps, you) I can’t stop myself from making my viewpoints known, so among this blog, Steemit, Narrative, et. al., I will still be posting my “delusional,” “idiotic,” “socialist” statements—free from the ignorance that would have anyone incorrectly label a given statement as such.

I look forward to future meaningful and intelligent discourse!

Written on