Twitter Tolerance, and a Column I Think You’ll LikeShareThis
New Puck Daddy: On the many ways players get told they’re being traded.
My cousin Adam is on twitter (he’s a good follow, aside from his shiiiiiitty taste is sports teams. @Hnatty92. Really, Dolphins, Senators and Rangers? Have some pride.), and had a friend tweet a pretty funny joke, which he promptly retweeted for Darren Dreger to read…. who promptly blocked him.
It was when Dreger introduced his new blog, The Dreger Report. Making a play on the fact that the infamous hockey “insider” “Eklund” just bites everything Dreger tweets, says or sings and claims it as his own information, the oh-so-scandalous tweet was: “Looking forward to the introduction of The Dreklund Report tomorrow.”
Of all things to block someone over…..
Anyway, it got me thinking about Twitter tolerance: how much should we have? Not only do I want to block, ohhh, 5% of my followers, but I want to punch about 4% of them. I don’t, because….whatever. How hard is it for me to simply ignore their messages and just forget they’re reading mine?
So as of this moment, I’ve only blocked one person, and it wasn’t for any one tweet that really irked me. It was just a constant barrage of shitty, negative responses to everything I put out there that I didn’t want to deal with. I had engaged said random person before and didn’t like their tone, and still resisted the block.
But you know how sometimes you just have “one of those days?” He said something minorly annoying when I was already annoyed, so I said eff it, and blocked him.
There’s a commenter on Puck Daddy who I don’t appreciate either (Benjimann or something, I dunno), not because the guy is mean and hateful, just…..why comment with one negative sentence on every post? Piss off.
Anyway, there was an interesting story from Jeff Pearlman of CNN/SI who actually sought out a couple of his blatantly hateful commenters, tracked down their phone numbers and called them, only to find them apologetic, basically explaining a) it’s easier behind the walls of the internet and b) they didn’t think he’d be reading.
Point is, I am, in fact, reading your comments and replies, even if I don’t have time to respond because I have to work, or am simply not at my computer, but reading on the phone.
Those people he called probably got what they wanted – his attention – which sucks, but it goes to prove a point: Not many people are really as crappy as their hateful internet comments, so I’m calling out to all of us to be better from now on. There’s nothing wrong with being a sarcastic dick, but the actul vicious, nippy stuff? It’s unnecessary.
The internet isn’t new anymore, and it’s time we up the etiquette a little. Not here on this blog, by the way, everyone here could stand to be a little more disagreeable, if anything. But when you comment on other people’s work, or tweets, or videos….how about questions about the stuff you don’t like instead of leaving a line of hate and moving on to LOLcats without even realizes you soiled a moment of someone’s day? Open the conversation up.
I’m not the Almighty Polite or anything. I’m not all free-love and we have to agree on everything, just look at my post yesterday that involved Adam Proteau. It’s just healthy once in awhile to realize this new internet age is the death of the one-sided conversation you used to get from sportswriters like Rick Reilly, who by the way, are at the forefront of the blogs-are-stupid, what’s-this-tweeter-thing-I-keep-hearing-about resistance.
Nobody in the world has adjusted better than Bob McKenzie, who happily LOL’s his way through his @’s, making people realize he’s a person, not just some guy who spouts hockey info on TV all day long. We know about his sons, his musical tastes, and more. We feel like we know him, because he’s embraced the recent shifting of the plate tectonics under the sports media world, and we like him all the more for it.
Times have changed, so it’s time that we do too.