The most hilarious thing I have experienced on Twitter to date

March 15, 2011

I kid you not.

A simple Twitt story, really. Some Tweep involved in an exchange with some folks about MDMA says

@ayiasophia Are you reading @drugmonkeyblog on MDMA research? Great source. @girlinterruptin @beckyfh

So I looked at what the participants were chatting about and chimed in. As is my wont.

One of these discussions got a little involved since it started getting off into the science. Unsurprisingly, as is typical for Twitter and the 140 char limit, it can be hard to advance very quickly. Mostly because one has little knowledge of the other person’s pre-existing knowledge base and has to operate on the basis of what they actually Tweet. So, you know, when someone starts down the road of “MDMA is totes self-limiting because you can never regain the original high”, yeah, I’m going to check and make sure the person understands that this drug is structurally an amphetamine and has some shared pharmacological effects with all the other amphetamines. I kind of have an interest.

At any rate after a whole string of exchanges (I count 11 replies to me) this person says:

Am I missing something, do you just barge into other ppl’s convos, pick fights and patronise them for any particular reason?


This is hilarious. Of course, I DO barge into other people conversations and pick fights with them. Yes, I have been known to patronize now and again. Whether I do it for “any particular reason” is, of course, up to the observer to judge.

But all independent of me….


You got your social media that is private…cell phone, Skype, email, direct messaging on Twitter…heck you can even lock your Twitter account to keep it semi-limited.

And then you got your social media that is public. That would be “public” to the entire Internet-using population of the planet. Open Twitter messaging is public.

What the stones are you doing engaging on one of the public Internet-enabled media types if you don’t expect the Internet using public to read?

Christ. Sometimes I think the entire Internet was constructed just to give PhysioProf and I constant LOLs…

No Responses Yet to “The most hilarious thing I have experienced on Twitter to date”

  1. becca Says:

    DM, it’s not *your* twitter. The same etiquette rules as when posting on an unfamiliar blog should be followed.
    In other words, barge in. But take the time to establish a rapport if you want people to actually consider what you have to say. Otherwise, you’re gonna be seen as a troll. Even if you’re not.


  2. drugmonkey Says:

    But take the time to establish a rapport if you want people to actually consider what you have to say.

    You got any evidence that shows that this is superior to irritating and enraging people?


  3. FWDAOTI requires no formal meet and greet period before tearing someone a new asshole.


  4. drugmonkey Says:

    I swear this one snuck up on me dude. I was trying to be serious.


  5. Eric Chandler Says:

    But irritating people is so easy? Don’t you want a challenge?


  6. becca Says:

    Actually, there’s plenty of data on this topic.

    Although I will note. If you are trying to get people to eat fried grasshoppers, be likeable. If you want the subset of people you convince to eat them to BELIEVE they LIKE to eat fried grasshoppers, be irritating and enraging.

    The best part from the book “Persuasion theory and research” was this quote: “When receivers had chosen to listen to the communication, the liked communicator was more effective than the disliked communicator, but when receivers had freely chosen to listen to the message, the disliked communicator was more effective than the liked communicator (R.A. Jones & Brehm, 1967)”

    Dude, that’s almost enough to make me chalk up this one under the files of “the vast majority of psychological research just tells us what we already knew”.
    In other words, at first it seemed like you might be saying “because twitter is public, I get to be a douchecanoe”- which would seem to be a nonsequitor. Yet if we recast your argument just slightly as “because this tweeter choose to listen to me, I get to be a douchecanoe” then all of a sudden DM looks like someone with keen insight into persuasion. Except that your tweet may not have been thinking she was choosing to listen to you, and so she still thinks you’re a douchecanoe and your persuasion attempt failed. If she ever gets around to eating fried grasshoppers, I am sure she will thank you though.


  7. Adverbia Says:

    Oh, you. And your logic. Is there a word that simultaneously means “a very noble endeavour” and “completely doomed to failure”?

    With 140 characters, just being online is all the rapport you need. Give ’em hell.


  8. drugmonkey Says:

    the long game is to irritate people so that they listen to you, front them so they are clear about what they actually believe, listen to what they actually believe* and hopefully to advance understanding on both sides.

    *this is important


  9. drugmonkey Says:

    If you want the subset of people you convince to eat them to BELIEVE they LIKE to eat fried grasshoppers, be irritating and enraging.

    You may regret reinforcing my behavior in this regard, becca.

    all of a sudden DM looks like someone with keen insight into persuasion

    I was not born yesterday, you know.

    You also seem to be ignoring the street theater aspect of this. The “audience” after all, is not always the person you are apparently talking to.


  10. Arikia Says:

    Perceptive tweeter is perceptive.


  11. Fucke fucken twittering.


  12. DrugMonkey Says:

    CPP is like some dude who knows he can never so much as try cocaine because he suspects he would be selling off his pet cat for another fix within a month. He knows Twitter is his natural medium!


  13. Namnezia Says:

    You don’t barge in into people’s conversations in the table next to you at a restaurant, do you?


  14. becca Says:

    No indication as to whether you can *predict* which people will be amenable to your persuasion though. It doesn’t matter how much of a True Believer for the Cause someone will be *once* you get them persuaded, if you can never persuade them in the first place.

    Ergo, do not blame me for your choice to be irritating to any one individual in particular.
    I grok the street theater bit in that who doesn’t love an audience?! sense. Not in the ‘using this idiot as an example case to teach from’ sense. Not without fully informed consent from the idiot anyway.


  15. This is crackeing me the fucke uppe that a bunch of fucken twittering morons are discussing the finer points of moron etiquette. Is it appropriate to fart really loud, but not smelly, or can I just rip out a toxic cloud of stench whenever I want?


  16. Eric Chandler Says:

    Concur. I favor getting people’s attention by sending a message with some stank on it myself. I don’t use it in all cases, but I do use it.


  17. Beth Says:

    This is a very interesting blog post. I agree it is confusing that they became oppositional after so many apparently tolerant replies. I think the difference is related to background and innate personality, which strongly influences communication style. I have noticed on twitter that scientists and science journalists/bloggers are very similar in style to the author of this blog post. Interaction and information from anyone is seen as something good, even if it has not been requested. If someone with a subject specialty interacts and clarifies some facts it is welcomed by the above groups as well. This seems to be because the information itself is the focus, rather than the source or presentation style of information. Perhaps this can be traced to the influence of science training/background encouraging the perception of accuracy as independently confirmed proofs. Also related is the willingness to change opinions because of the existence of new evidence.

    In contrast, people that work in PR, as well as some independent bloggers seem to have opposition to unsolicited information, interaction, analysis, and clarification of facts and any type of unsolicited review is taken as criticism. This may be linked to their alternate definition of what could be called intellectual territory appearing to be stricter, because of the framework of their perception. In science if someone states an agreed upon fact, it is not questioned but repeated and distributed among all interested parties that may find value in applying the principle.

    With people of contrasting philosophy there seems to exist a concern with someone “hating on” or “taking their idea” even if it is going against an agreed upon fact and should be fair game to a science oriented person. Also, twitter conversation for these folks is not really so much for open-minded exchange, but to be validated by known and trusted others for their individual contribution. This is reflected in the projection and accusation of negative intent towards anyone disagreeing with them.

    I am the type of tweeter that converses similarly to the author of this post. The only thing that bothers me is lack of respect for someone’s safety. Certain bloggers have been harassed and/or have experienced identity theft/cybercrime in person and offline, and this causes them to choose to be pseudonymous.


  18. Isis the Scientist Says:



  19. drugmonkey Says:

    Heck yeah….you don’t?


  20. Dr Becca Says:

    I do if people are WRONG!!!


  21. Pinko Punko Says:

    They shouldn’t have @drugmonkey’d you if they didn’t want the batsignal. Although I thought the irritating street theater, or perhaps ye old fuckinge renaissance faire, was CPP.


  22. drugmonkey Says:

    Maybe it rubs off, Pinko P?


  23. isabel Says:



  24. isabel Says:

    My philosophy exactly.


  25. Depends on the idiots at the next table. If the morons are speaking so loudly that I cannot hear the conversation at my own table, damn skippy I join in on theirs. If they ask me to butt out, I tell them they need to be more discreet.

    The analogy is flawed though. There is a long standing convention that individual table conversations are semi-private and not to be intruded upon. Twitter however did not start with such a convention as far as I am aware.


  26. Pinko Punko Says:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: