I want to advance an understanding of someone’s political value as a simple ratio of
number of political interactions that are primarily negative or critical in character
total number of political interactions
This is based on a crude theory of political economy that interactions between those who substantially agree are necessarily interactions where there is little capacity for change, and the purpose of politics is to change minds in service to enacting positive material change in the world. Telling someone else how much you liked something they said or wrote, or inviting others to do the same, has no practical political value.
The fact that this figure is maximally self-aggrandizing for me and maximally dismissive of those I don’t like is of course purely coincidental.
This hermeneutic will lead to inaccurate results and privileges the critical. It does not take into account that political statements of “agreement” can be effective at creating or maintaining norms, or raising a person’s status (either the high-fiver or the high-fivee). It can even raise the status of the idea at hand.
Why do you think party political conventions have thousands of people cheering like crazy at the candidate? Because cheering has some mind-shaping value as well.
Take this on the micro-level. Can anyone imagine raising children only through disagreement and disapproval? Of course not.
Having said all that, I share your disgust with the mutual-self-pleasure of Twitter political discourse.
Yes, you’re right of course. I hope it’s clear that this is mostly self-parody.