Our support on social media

[trublusince1982 243]

I don't use twitter but facebook in particular is hard going. It's not just the fact that the views are so ignorant and misguided (eg one of the main pages has everyone discussing who will be signed with Ashley's 10m ), but the level of intelligence seems very low. People write in illegible English and generally do not represent our support well. Does this say something about our support or is it the platform?

 

There's not a single person here who is incapable of conversing in legible English but on our fan facebook pages you are hard pushed to find anyone making well constructed arguments.

It says more about you. Your complete misunderstanding of the social part of social media. You should feel amongst friends, its socializing. Do you pull people up for bad grammar in the pub or when in the stands? Do you really think people would allow the same spelling mistakes/grammar at their work or in writing a letter or report?

 

It says you cannot tell the difference between dreaming and believing. It also shows you care too much about what other people think and should try and relax you are not under constant judgement. Never mind the fact you know nothing of the posters or the reasons for grammar etc.Maybe they have fat fingers and cant be arsed fixing mistakes through touch screen mistakes. Maybe they have learning difficulties like dyslexia, they may not spell as well as you but they may also be far more intelligent than you. There could be a multitude of reasons you know nothing about, personally I would take someone with bad grammar over someone who thinks they can judge a persons character and worth through two lines of text on social media any day of the week.

[Stimpy 0]

Control your own timeline and you'll enioy social media. Ban, block, unfriend and unlike the Wallopers.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Social media has an almighty voice, I remember reading newspapers:)

 

I used to write,

I used to write letters I used to sign my name

[trublusince1982 243]

I used to write,

I used to write letters I used to sign my name

Social media is one of the few places words stand on their own without the human traits of the speaker being imbued. Its a bit like seeing a snapshot of a moment in time and then thinking you know everything that passed before and after.

 

The same shockingly unintelligent post on social media when presented to you from the mouth of a person would be mitigated by circumstance(emotion,state,place,reasoning) therefore giving a more balanced and understandable meaning.

 

the most left field opinion can garner more attention and a willingness to listen if you know part of the speakers history. What they have achieved previously, their standing in society, their emotional responses when in extremes can be mitigated by knowing what they have gone through before when voicing this opinion.

 

Imagine Galileo on social media describing to anyone and sundry the finding of the earth rotating round the sun, he would be hounded and victimized in extremes. He would be mocked and degraded before anyone asked a question. His responses would become seemingly more irrational along with his grammar and structure as his emotional state changes through challenge of his ability and demeaning of his person. Ultimately being taken as evidence of the stupidity of Galileo without any frank discussion of his findings or willingness to listen.

 

Not to mention that a persons goals or reasons cannot be assessed easily through social media. For example posters on RM will attribute different traits to me than those on here. On RM i take a purposefully aggressive stance regardless of believing what I am debating because it is the best strategy for my end goal. My end goal or wants from Gersnet are different so i am more of a wall flower! Both of those will be evident in my respective posts but neither will on their own tell you anything about me.

 

The old fable of the Gers fans online are not representative of the support in the stadium is wrong mostly. Obviously it is a smaller group so cannot be extrapolated to being the thinking of the whole support, but it is at the end of the day the same people you meet in the stadium as you do online.A season ticket holder online is the same season ticket holder you meet in the stadium. The only difference is the listener has far more evidential attributes to discern the personality of the speaker than the reader does of the writer.

Edited November 8, 2014 by trublusince1982

[buster. 5,267]

Social media (SM) has changed how an ever increasing number of our supporters interact with the club, including the battleground that passes for a political & financial landscape.

 

As with commerce, those interested recognise this and allocate more time and resources towards it in an effort to achieve a net gain. This is why there has been a plethora of agitators sent in an attempt to influence, shape and direct opinion on our messageboards.

 

Gersnet doesn't see so many as the likes of FF and RM because of numbers involved and that in a smaller community it may be more difficult to merge successfully. Over on FF, I've developed a nose for such agitators and it's a curious subject that is worth a thread of it's own.

 

SM has inserted new layers between what goes on upstairs at Ibrox and the supporter. These layers should help a flow of information and subsequent organisation (the positive), they do but this has to battle against disinformation, spin, confusion, the seeking of division etc. (negative). The negative forces who at the top are paid to do their worst, tend to be more organised, informed and have more established conduits to use after many years of doing similar or you could say developing the battleground to their requirements regarding division.

 

In simplespeak, the 'negative' forces fight for them what is a vital battle to keep the 'positive' down and facilitate an enviroment whereby it's easier for those in executive control to do as they will. Obviously this particular 'battleground' is wider than just SM and uses the traditional media as an essential tool within the struggle.

 

The disturbing tendency throughout society is that it is becoming easier 'to fool most of the people'.

 

Social Media is what you make of it.

[trublusince1982 243]

Social media (SM) has changed how an ever increasing number of our supporters interact with the club, including the battleground that passes for a political & financial landscape.

 

As with commerce, those interested recognise this and allocate more time and resources towards it in an effort to achieve a net gain. This is why there has been a plethora of agitators sent in an attempt to influence, shape and direct opinion on our messageboards.

 

Gersnet doesn't see so many as the likes of FF and RM because of numbers involved and that in a smaller community it may be more difficult to merge successfully. Over on FF, I've developed a nose for such agitators and it's a curious subject that is worth a thread of it's own.

 

SM has inserted new layers between what goes on upstairs at Ibrox and the supporter. These layers should help a flow of information and subsequent organisation (the positive), they do but this has to battle against disinformation, spin, confusion, the seeking of division etc. (negative). The negative forces who at the top are paid to do their worst, tend to be more organised, informed and have more established conduits to use after many years of doing similar or you could say developing the battleground to their requirements regarding division.

 

In simplespeak, the 'negative' forces fight for them what is a vital battle to keep the 'positive' down and facilitate an enviroment whereby it's easier for those in executive control to do as they will. Obviously this particular 'battleground' is wider than just SM and uses the traditional media as an essential tool within the struggle.

 

The disturbing tendency throughout society is that it is becoming easier 'to fool most of the people'.

 

Social Media is what you make of it.

agree with that.

 

Its similar to when a false claim is made against someone. They are found not guilty but whenever their name is mentioned people who don't know them but have heard of them remember them as the person who was meant to have done x to y. They don't remember their name or have any personality traits to recognise them through.They become defined by something they never did.

 

Same goes on social media and that misunderstanding between comment and personality is easily manipulated by those who chose too. On RM i will regularly use a weak and easily disproved and baited argument to suck in posters who are obviously there to push opinion in a designated fashion and have refused to openly debate any of their points, or answer any questions when obvious holes appear. Then once they are happy in their degrading and playing to the crowd I then turn that argument round to what they were trying to avoid.Showing my willingness to answer and be proved wrong against their refusal. After that i will leave the thread to take a more natural course of debate, with posters finally debating the points they were "meant" not to. All the agitator can do is run and hide without answer making their purpose more and more obvious over time to the uninitiated.

 

take the mendacious liar moniker, a unmitigated success by the poster in question. He was able to have fans who would not have even known the meaning of the word to use it as their reasoning to not like Dave king.All other reasoning went out the window.Before they knew it they are regurgitating another's argument verbatim instead of formulating their own.No weighing of pro's and cons. A true show of the power manipulating social media can bring. Add onto that a campaign of alienating new information by replacing "what was said" with "who said it" and there is no acceptable counter to what you have put out there.

 

 

Probably doesn't interest most but something I find interesting.

[Siam69 0]

agree with that.

 

Its similar to when a false claim is made against someone. They are found not guilty but whenever their name is mentioned people who don't know them but have heard of them remember them as the person who was meant to have done x to y. They don't remember their name or have any personality traits to recognise them through.They become defined by something they never did.

 

Same goes on social media and that misunderstanding between comment and personality is easily manipulated by those who chose too. On RM i will regularly use a weak and easily disproved and baited argument to suck in posters who are obviously there to push opinion in a designated fashion and have refused to openly debate any of their points, or answer any questions when obvious holes appear. Then once they are happy in their degrading and playing to the crowd I then turn that argument round to what they were trying to avoid.Showing my willingness to answer and be proved wrong against their refusal. After that i will leave the thread to take a more natural course of debate, with posters finally debating the points they were "meant" not to. All the agitator can do is run and hide without answer making their purpose more and more obvious over time to the uninitiated.

 

take the mendacious liar moniker, a unmitigated success by the poster in question. He was able to have fans who would not have even known the meaning of the word to use it as their reasoning to not like Dave king.All other reasoning went out the window.Before they knew it they are regurgitating another's argument verbatim instead of formulating their own.No weighing of pro's and cons. A true show of the power manipulating social media can bring. Add onto that a campaign of alienating new information by replacing "what was said" with "who said it" and there is no acceptable counter to what you have put out there.

Probably doesn't interest most but something I find interesting.

 

Yes, I find it interesting as well, excellent last couple of posts above from yourself and time4 change..

 

And I shake my head with disbelief when I unfortunately regularly read stuff like 'I didn't even read it but know it's lies and bollocks because it's by XYZ'.

 

Especially with everything we've been through recently, the mind boggles. Personally, even with the more obvious 'plants' on RM or McMurdo, i'll read and digest what they have to say first, before forming an opinion, as most sane people do!

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It says more about you. Your complete misunderstanding of the social part of social media. You should feel amongst friends, its socializing. Do you pull people up for bad grammar in the pub or when in the stands? Do you really think people would allow the same spelling mistakes/grammar at their work or in writing a letter or report?

 

It says you cannot tell the difference between dreaming and believing. It also shows you care too much about what other people think and should try and relax you are not under constant judgement. Never mind the fact you know nothing of the posters or the reasons for grammar etc.Maybe they have fat fingers and cant be arsed fixing mistakes through touch screen mistakes. Maybe they have learning difficulties like dyslexia, they may not spell as well as you but they may also be far more intelligent than you. There could be a multitude of reasons you know nothing about, personally I would take someone with bad grammar over someone who thinks they can judge a persons character and worth through two lines of text on social media any day of the week.

Are you steaming?

[Jim1955 12]

I use both facebook and twitter. Both sites are different and offer different things. I don't follow Rangers on facebook but find twitter very useful in this respect. Rangers are one up against Falkirk at the moment. I found this out on twitter before the red button on the bbc told me.

[trublusince1982 243]

Are you steaming?

haha. now your getting it.