The Paradoxical Effects of Twitter

By Eddie “Cube” Rawls

Twitter’s like the powder cocaine of social networking — but, cut with too much f*cking Ex-Lax.

This bird has me firmly in its beak.

Twitter. Tweets. #Hashtags. Twitpics. Tweeps. Retweets.

Christ.

A bag of turds Twitter feature known as “Retweet” has become part of the American vernacular.

What? Retweet? A word? Are you kidding me? Not only that, but I’m writing about that c*cksucking word right this very instant. Rawls is angry!

But… I’m hooked man. Twitter has this creepy narcotic effect on me. I don’t want it, but I do. And so, I’ve taken the time to break this bird buzz down to its core psychological elements. Here’s a potential problem: I don’t care much for the “social” aspect of “social networking.”

While some might find an anti-social view of humans to be somewhat inconsistent with the concept of social networking, I’d simply tell you to eat me.

For those who agree with what is patently obvious, we’re all schmucks, you will notice Twitter has a paradoxical effect on you. You are drawn to it, but what it wants, you don’t. If there’s a cause chirped on Twitter, no matter how rational or well-served it might seem to lesser-folk, it will abhor you and cause great, warranted outrage. Regardless of the “trending topic” on Twitter, it becomes a turn-off to the very fiber of your being. Like in drug addiction, this is called a paradoxical effect.

Take for example, Girl Scouts. When Girl Scouts became some kind of viral Twitter meme — I made no apologies — my donations went down. As in zero. The very organization makes me sick now. Girl Scouts… They’re like little green vomit-stains running around selling tainted baked goods.

Their cookies? Poison. Bad for the economy. In fact, The Girl Scouts make Commie Cookies. I hear of rumors Girl Scouts keep league with Al Qaeda. Girl Scouts are succubus, evil, wrong and a threat to national security. Because of Twitter.

Twitter produces an unintended anti-social network. A “paradoxical effect” and for me, the beginning of a Utopian gathering.

Do you like Mad Men? Great show huh? Wrong. It sucks. Why? People on Twitter liked it. Therefore, the show sucks the dong.

I will never, ever, watch Mad Men. I don’t care about how many Emmy Awards it wins or critical praise it garners — people on Twitter switched over their avatars to friggin’ Mad Men characters. To be crystal, folks actually switched the pictures they use for identification to characters from a T.V. show — in mass. Why? Because other twitterers did.

This act, this obscene gesture of Groupthink, spread like an STD in an STD factory. The prevailing implication was if you didn’t use a Mad Men avatar, you couldn’t hang with the cool kids. You were in fact, uncool.

Maybe that’s so. Perhaps I’m just not the sort who gravitates towards the idol worshiping artsy-fartsy types. If being “cool” requires dry-humping Mad Men avatars, count me out. I stand up to peer pressure. I’m a man of action. This Mad Men business, I take it as a matter of life and death. Obviously, by taking the prophylactic measure of avoiding Mad Men, I won’t break out with a raunchy case of genital-warts or the AIDS… which come from Twitter.

Then you have Twitter’s retweet feature. Essentially, one is retweeting when directly quoting another’s tweets. Simply, you are re-sending out a tweet already written by someone else. Einstein invented it.

People love retweeting “Breaking News.” Maybe these birds hope to show others how advanced they are with their Super-Electronic-Twitter-SpyMatic-Surveillance equipment when they parrot breaking news from the past. I only know intense amounts of pain fill my body upon seeing such retweets. If not properly used, retweeting is known to cause bloody stools.

I use it — the retweet feature. However, I’m an admitted addict and have a gross of Mylanta bottles sitting in my pantry as I prepare for the upcoming nuclear holocaust. Anyhoo, with regard to retweets, rather than merely regurgitate the words of others, I try to add my own spice.

Today someone tweeted this: “¸.•*’ ‘* Sparkly Hugs*´`*•.¸ ¸.•*’ ‘* Sparkly Hugs*´`*•.¸ ¸.•*’ ‘* Sparkly Hugs*´`”

Take that Shakespearean wonder in.

I replied “.357 inching towards mouth” and retweeted the violent “Sparkly Hugs” tweet. Bottom line, “Sparkly Hugs” must be destroyed. Surely everyone is on board, right? Wrong! Muwahahahahaaha. “Sparkly Hugs” have a powerful alliance.

People actually retweeted the “Sparkly Hugs” gibberish to show their support. A proud, ringing endorsement for God-Damned “Sparkly Hugs?”

I’ve got something fer ya’ “Sparkly Hug:” F*ck you… “Sparkly Hug.” I don’t know what you are and I don’t like you.

And dig this… A user not only took the time to line up dashes and asterisks and other suicide-inducing symbols to form whatever the Hell “Sparkly Hugs” are, but another actually thought that important enough for others to embrace as what? Some life guiding philosophy? A doctrine requiring followers of “Sparkly Hugs” to follow the “Sparkly Hug” f*cking creed?

I have the answer. Take the “Sparkly Hug” tweet from Twitter and print it out. Paste it on a target. Line that sucker up down range about 5 yards. Find an RPG.

Fire.

***

Fire on Twitter