What goes around comes around, they say, and that’s at least as true on social media as anywhere else in life.
Two weeks ago I replied to a photo of a Newfoundland puffin with one of my own from the Shetlands — and just thinking about being able to “reply” to a photo with another photo makes me smile — and suddenly my Twitter feed was full of puffin photos (even a Welsh one) posted in response to mine. And that made me smile, too.
Last week I cited James Garner as an example of an actor who seemed to wear a role as a second skin, and suddenly my Twitter feed was full of nostalgic posts/photos by Garner’s daughter and his fans. OK, OK, I smiled again.
Contrariwise, when I retweeted a cranky-but-fair op-ed assessment of a given politician’s failings, the blasts came from both sides. Apparently my retweet of a thoughtful and carefully worded critique was UNACCEPTABLE for, simultaneously, going WAY too far and not going ANYWHERE NEAR far enough. WHAT WAS I THINKING?
I admit that I can’t recover my exact state of mind when I hit “retweet” on the political commentary, but I know my current state of mind exactly and it is this: The world has a surfeit of anger. I likely can’t keep it from coming around, but I can refuse to send it out in the first place.
If cranky generates outrage, and cute puffins generate . . . more cuteness, then I’m in. Like, with the puffins I mean.
And James Garner. He was pretty cute, too.