Not long ago, I conducted a small survey among members of my family and some of my drinking colleagues. They only had to answer one question: are you on Twitter/X. 

Of the 20 or so participants in this admittedly rudimentary review, only three had a Twitter account, of which only one actually posted and then only sporadically. 

The other two hadn’t even realised that it had changed its name to X. Only one out of the 20 knew that the micro-blogging site was now owned by Elon Musk.

I only mention this because if you are one of the very small cachet of people who use this social media platform regularly you might be forgiven for thinking that the main global story unfolding over the last two weeks has not been Donald Trump’s US presidential election victory. 

In this ethereal and narcissistic world, it seems that the emergence of a rival micro-blogging site has become the planet’s prevalent, ongoing news story. And this mainly because some people appear to have migrated across to it. What’s more, some have been issuing their own personal statements, written in the style of the Gettysburg Address, to explain their reasons for doing so. 

Nothing more perfectly typifies the psycho narcissism of this social subgenre than those who fancy themselves to be culturally relevant – journalists, politicians, entertainers – believing that the simple act of choosing another domain is worthy of self-proclamation. 

It seems that many of them now believe Twitter/X to be a “toxic hellscape” because Elon Musk stands accused of aiding president-elect Trump in his election campaign. As such, they think it’s now populated mainly by extreme right-wingers who are using it to prey on the weak and the vulnerable. 

By publicising their flouncing away from Twitter they are effectively saying: “Look at me. I’m a culturally important person and I’m a better and more ethical human being than these cultural hobbledehoys who have infected my timeline.” 

Here’s the truth: the vast majority of real people in the real world do not give a Friar Tuck about this. 

Laughable ‘liberals’
Here’s another truth about some of those who have made public their flouncing. 
Some of them are among the most ghastly and insufferably sanctimonious people I’ve ever encountered in journalism and politics. Many of them, while self-proclaiming as “liberal” and “left wing” are about as left wing as Jeremy Clarkson. 

We know this because while women and gay people were subject to years of systematic abuse and intimidation for stating that sex is real these frauds looked the other way. In some cases, they helped to facilitate it. 

They will also proclaim their righteousness about climate change because, well… they know that nothing they can do will affect it one way or another and it doesn’t demand of them any self-sacrifice or activism. 

If they really were concerned about climate change they would know that the largest culprit is global capitalism. According to the Carbon Majors report in 2017, just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. 

But taking on these companies is a bit too much like hard work. It’s easier for them to wag their fingers about climate accountability on social media. 

Real working people know this too, which is why they don’t give a monkey’s either about climate change and care even less for media elites handing them down their ethics. 
Twitter/X will now be a far more pleasant and less preachy place for their absence.

We can only hope that, unlike previous cases of mass flouncing, they stick to their promises never to return. 

Decorations debate
FOR those who still insist on using social media as their main source of news may I recommend a recent article by my Herald colleague Susan Swarbrick, who is also one of our finest feature writers? 

Ms Swarbrick was writing about another cultural debate that has emerged in recent years: when to start putting up the Christmas decorations.

“There tends to be an inherent snobbery about those who put their decorations up early,” she wrote, “the suggestion being that it’s gauche and lowbrow to do so.

“It’s a peculiar and baffling stance. The notion that anyone believes they get to self-righteously police how others are allowed to relax in their own home irks me no end.”

Ms Swarbrick’s thoughts resonated with me. There are some streets on Glasgow’s southside and in the east end where the Christmas decorations seem to appear much earlier than in other places. The reason why is not hard to divine. 

These are neighbourhoods in which the passing of another year represents a small triumph of survival and human forbearance. They will have faced challenges that most of the rest of us can never really imagine. 

When the season of bright lights and goodwill is near at hand they embrace it early as a means of making it last for as long as possible. They need these lights to come on as early in the year as they deem appropriate. 

How very Christian
WHEN I see these streets, I’m immediately transported to a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen called The Little Match Girl that haunted my childhood. 

It’s about a poor, young girl on New Year’s Eve trying to sell matches on the street. In desperation, and to protect herself from the cold, she begins lighting the matches one by one and sees in them a series of visions of items she can never have: a brightly-lit Christmas tree and a roasted goose.  

In one of them she sees her dead grandmother, the only person who ever showed her generosity and kindness. And so, in a forlorn attempt to keep this vision, she lights the rest of the matches. In the morning, the townsfolk who walked past her the previous night discover her body, frozen to death. 

There are dozens of Little Match Girls and Boys on the streets of Glasgow right now. We walk past them every day. Between now and Christmas, some of them will also freeze to death. Hans Christian Andersen wrote his story in 1845.