I've realised a few things about tootstorming.
1. It's ... possibly frighteningly ... fun. Once you get on a roll, you're marshalling your thoughts in 500 character, roughly 80-word, nuggest.
2. That's about the same size as one of my 4x6 index cards, filled out fully.
3. Which means it's a bit like outlining an essay, though of course, Timelines and stuff mean that everything is strictly sequential.
4. People can respond to individual cards, either boosting, favouriting, or commenting.
@dredmorbius About tweetstorms, politics and gender: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/05/521835755/what-should-we-make-of-the-tweetstorm-or-thread-or-whatever-you-call-it
Someone coined the term "mantreading" when several male tweeps discussed US politics via tweetstorm, but this might miss the point. Tweetstorms have always been popular among female users as well (and they might have invented the technique): https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/808695280057143297
@stefanieschulte Interesting article. Though I've got a whole bushel of problems with terms like "mansplaining" and "manthreading" being tossed around casually. Even /where/ accurate, they are terms which have a great deal of opportunity to make a situation worse, and little to improve, defuse, or prevent it.
That's not a denial of privilege or behaviour, but its /also/ a reflection on dynamics of such discussions. There's an essay on the topic I may need to write.
The thread/form bits...
@dredmorbius I think "mansplaining" is more about the receiver than about the sender: Most people seem to be much more patient when men act that way than when women try the same. In real life, I have a tendency to ramble, too, but people usually interrupt me quickly.
I don't think this is the same in social media: Women's tweetstorms don't seem to be received less favourably than men's, at least in my experience.
@stefanieschulte Specific instance comes to mind: someone had posted about a gym/workout issue, being worse at a particular lift than they wanted to be. I responded with some pretty commonplace, though effective, advice. I'd had no idea if the poster was a man or a woman, and didn't much care, I'd followed them for a year or more. The response was that I was "mansplaining'.
I pointed out the several issues with the claim, and tried to return the matter to workouts. It didn't stay there.
@stefanieschulte At which point I elected to delete my contributions to the thread and block the user.
If the first assumption coming out of the gate is that some pseudonymous profile writing in good faith is mansplaining...then productive discussion seems unlikely to happen. I don't have the cycles for that fight.
I've been trying really hard not to cheer loudly in agreement with @maiyannah's recent thread about the privilege knapsack. But her views are refreshing.
From the outside, actual helpful advise can look a lot like mansplaining.
So if you constantly get things mansplained, and in comes a man explaining things, regardless of how sane and innocent that was, _of course_ he's a nasty mansplainer too!
The only fix I can come up with is to make bad interpersonal behaviour non-rewarding. (where the trick is to figure out what the "reward" here is. Attention, even negative, can be a reward. As can "getting away with it" be. So if you think that someone feels rewarded by column a, but it's actually column b, you're in deep trouble)
If the behaviour comes from a position of power, and that power can be removed, that's an option.
If it comes from a position of /lack/ of power, or more specifically, /responsibility/, then giving a small measure of responsibility may help address this. See what it is to actually have to /work with others/ in order to /achieve/ something.