Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Drama of Twitter

Every time the internet produces some new way for people to directly interact via text, it becomes immediately and largely inundated with idiots, proselytizers, rabid fans, hyper-sensitives- you're on the internet, you know. While Twitter may be valuable for a whole wealth of reasons that AIM, IRC, Trillian, Livejournal and all the rest may not- most notably the choice by Celebregeeks and some celebrities' PR teams to actively participate- it also brings along with it the usual trappings of potential internet douchery, at a rapid-fire 140 characters a reply.

There have been a couple hiccups I've experienced in twitter interactions so far, mostly over American Idol, but Proposition 8 provided an whole new backdrop against which to do battle. It is twitter, after all- everyone has a hashtag, everyone chimes in, and ChristianGuide (aka Brian) was no exception. In response to something written by ronpurtee, Brian said:

"@ronpurtee it Hurts me because if I don't agree I get labeled as a hater. Honestly I don't care but then they need to allow beastiality."

Well, I just couldn't help myself.

EC: @ChristianGuide There's a big difference between having sex with an animal and being in a relationship with a consenting, sentient adult.

To which he, of course, replied.

Brian: @eruditechick prove it look at the defenition I mean cmon are you a bigot against those who practice beastiality?

EC:@ChristianGuide Oxford dictionary: Beastiality: 2. sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. I think non-consensual sex is wrong.

EC: @ChristianGuide Beastiality constitutes rape, as the animal cannot consent since it isn't sentient. Gay relationships aren't beastiality.

Brian: @eruditechick so your calling people who practice beastiality rapists? who can prove the animal consents or not. your a bigot

I lost my temper.

EC:@ChristianGuide No, you're a bigot.

EC:@ChristianGuide You disagree? You're upholding bestiality over gay marriage? On what grounds? Does that mean sex with kids is okay too?

Because kids can actually say they WANT you to have sex with them. I guess that's good enough for Brian. I mean, since they have such a clear understanding of what sex is, and can actually consent to it. I mean, if we're giving sheep the benefit of the doubt based on no ability to communicate with humans, surely another human albeit one who is underage, who can verbally communicate (so I guess they'd have to be at least four years old, or so) should be taken at their word and, therefor, fuckable. At least, that's my understanding of Brian's argument.

To which he did NOT reply. However, he also said he was not surprised by the name calling and threats from the people who disagreed with him, because "thats terrorists nature."

And I couldn't help but ask for clarification, if people who disagreed with him here then terrorists.

Brian: @eruditechick no people who threaten me are terrorists I got death threats because I disagree?

EC: @ChristianGuide Are you asking me? I have no idea. All I know is that I disagree with you and so far your arguments have been lacking.

What a fucking douchebag.

You can find him on the world wide web:

Web: http://www.christian-guide.info
Twitter: twitter.com/ChristianGuide

According to his public twitter profile.

This is one of the most regrettable parts of the internet, I have found: The fact that it brings the backwoods into your backyard.


James said...

Bravo to you for telling him off. It's sometimes a lost cause with people like that because they are so adamantly against something (like gay marriage, abortion, birth control, woman's rights) that it becomes a frustrating situation. Ron mentioned that guy to me earlier today too.

Also, I think he admitted to being both a pedophile and Don Juan to anteaters everywhere. I'm just saying, I read between the lines. :)