Prominent Democrats have urged their supporters to simply ignore President Donald Trump's tweets, but there are three major holes, former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa explained on Tuesday.
"I’m unfollowing the President of the United States today on Twitter, because his feed is the most hate-filled, racist, and demeaning of the 200+ I follow, and it regularly ruins my day to read it. So I’m just going to stop," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted on Sunday.
Rangappa laid out three flaws with the idea.
"Gandhi, and later, MLK, were effective in utilizing passive (or nonviolent, it wasn’t really passive) resistance because it exposed the brutality and moral hypocrisy of their oppressors," Rangappa tweeted. "The question is, can a similar tactic be employed with any effect in the information space?"
"I see three main obstacles. The first is lack of organization," she explained. "While Trump has a veritable army of an enabling right-wing media ecosystem, combined with Russian trolls/bots those who oppose him do not, comparatively."
"Second (and relatedly), while the movements in India/U.S. civil rights had a central leading moral figure, there is not one (compared to Trump’s influence, at least) in the information space," she continued.
"Third, physical violence is visceral, and visual. Trump uses words — words that have visceral effect, I used the term “punched in the gut” and we have seen Victor Blackwell’s poignant response this weekend — that hurt, but are harder against which to coalesce a condemnation," she explained.
"That said, it’s hard to see how mere outrage, at every (and increasing) verbal 'blow' is doing anything except justifying an equally escalating response," she worried.
"I’m not answering the question, but asking it: What would “virtual” passive resistance look like, and can it be effective?" she wondered.
Read the full thread: