Twitter Is Real Life Now
The barrier between the Twitterverse and Real Life ain't what it used to be
“Twitter is not real life.”
That phrase used to be said to remind us that the things that are of utmost importance to the Extremely Online - the arguments, the controversies, the outlier cases that prove your point - are not indicative of what those not on the platform think or worry about. It was meant as a reminder and a warning that getting too wrapped up in what is happening on Twitter can lead one to lose sight of what is actually going on in society.
The times, they have a’changed.
The latest example of a Twitter controversy migrating offline involves a comment made by Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett during the second day of her confirmation hearing. During a round of questioning from Senator Dianne Feinstein, Barrett was asked if she would support removing protections for LGBTQ people that had previously been established by the Supreme Court. She replied that she "never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." For most, this would be considered a perfectly fine answer to that question.
Some online progressives weren’t having it. All of a sudden the phrase “sexual preference” was verboten, replaced by “sexual orientation.” While it is true that “sexual orientation” has become the preferred verbiage since it does not imply choice, that phrase and “sexual preference” have been used interchangeably without comment for years. As Robby Soave points out in Reason Joe Biden used the phrase “sexual preference” at a Democratic roundtable in May without incident.
Within hours of Barrett’s comment drawing criticism on Twitter, Mark Joseph Stern had an op-ed on Slate telling us how “alarming” it was that Barrett used such an “archaic” expression and wondered if this was some sign that Barrett did not support gay rights. Senators Cory Booker and Mazie Hirono also got the memo, both criticizing Barrett for her word choice. She quickly apologized, saying she did not mean to imply that sexual orientation is a choice and she meant no offense.
This story doesn’t end there. Later that day Merriam-Webster stealth edited their dictionary entry for the word “preference” to reflect that using that word to describe sexual orientation is “offensive”
Here are the before and after pictures courtesy of Steve Krakauer
So a ginned up Extremely Online controversy made it into a Supreme Court confirmation hearing and the Merriam Webster dictionary; it would be laughable if situations like this weren’t becoming commonplace. What happens on Twitter increasingly drives what happens in the offline world. Journalists mine Twitter for story material, politicians mine Twitter for evidence of malfeasance, and both groups push the minutiae of Twitter to the masses. If there was ever an example of the tail wagging the dog, this would be it.
Alas, this is the world we live in now. And as long as Twitter rewards those who crank the outrage knob to eleven, writers get paid to write about the outrage du jour, and politicians can grandstand by participating in and pushing the silliest of “controversies”, this is where we will stay.