I’ve been on twitter I think a couple of years or so. And as I stated in a previous post, twitting can be a dangerous thing.
As I also explained there, I’ve have been very cautious and avoided getting into a twitter fight, firstly because I am not very good at arguing online anyway, and secondly because it is even worse when all I have is 140 characters.
This policy meant that I’ve never been blocked by anyone. Except now.
What could have caused the ire of that person? It is a question I’m asking myself as well.
Well, I have mentioned this person before. It is none other than Rita Panahi. The commentator that wrote two articles about Association Football fans. One is the now infamous one about ‘Chairgate’ while the other was one asserting that ‘soccer’ fans were nasty.
The strange thing is that I believed I wasn’t part of those nasty evil soccer fans she talked about. In fact quite the opposite. As her article online was paywalled – and I can’t bear to pay any money for that nasty, anti-working class, xenophobic, Murdock owned, pro-Liberal biased rag called the Herald Sun – I had an opportunity to read it a few days later in a café after I took my son to his orthodontist.
I thought the article was uninformed and pandered to the usual stereotypes. But, the overall it was balanced FROM A NON FOOTBALL FAN POINT OF VIEW. That is that from someone that may not a dyed in the wool Association Football fan it was a reasonable, if misinformed, article. But mostly I didn’t think it warranted the level of aggro that was directed at her. And also because insulting anyone is not really conducive in changing anyone’s mind.
So I did tweet something to her (and this was the first and only tweets I sent her)
Those tweets were risky in a sense that I’ve might have pissed off many of my football followers who were really angry with Ms. Panahi, so I did stuck my neck a bit.
I thought that her term of ‘disgraced themselves’ was a bit matronly, but I let it pass.
I did include the handle @RitaPanahi in some of the discussions with others who were more vocal in her disapproval. And perhaps I was blocked collaterally so she could not see others in her feed.
Perhaps it was the title of my by blog post: The Panahi/Elliott affair. Time to move on. Maybe it was ambiguous and I was implying that she and Mr. Elliot had an illicit liaison?
Who knows. If she read the post she would have read that while I was critical of her opening that we can’t call football…football in Australia (which I reiterate for the umptimph time I don’t really care, but go to the post if interested where I explain why it could have raffled some football fan’s feathers) she would have seen that the ‘us vs. them’ mentality really gets us nowhere. For sure criticise and debate, but being insulting may make us feel better but solves nothing.
But also I said: “Ms. Panahi has written uninformed articles, but offensive, misogynistic and racist comments directed at her are unacceptable and drags us all down.” I have read tweets calling her a ‘bitch’ and a ‘curry muncher’ and I repeat: THIS IS TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNACEPPTABLE. She expressed an opinion that we think is wrong. We think that she mis-represents us and our code. Being racist and misogynist dickwads does nothing for the overall debate.
As I was never intending to be one of her followers I don’t care being blocked by Ms. Panahi. But at least I have now been blocked by someone. I am a fully fledged twitter.