Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the Eternal-September-part-deux dept.

Critics may accuse President-elect Donald J. Trump and his supporters of dragging down public discourse in America, but civility took leave of open discussions years ago – online. Beneath digital news stories and social media posts are unmoderated, often anonymous comment streams showing in plain view the anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism simmering within the citizenry.

In the early days of the World Wide Web, digital conversation areas were small, disparate, anonymous petri dishes, growing their own online cultures of human goodness as well as darkness. But when virtual forums expanded onto mainstream news sites more than a decade ago, incivility became the dominant force. The people formerly known as the audience used below-the-line public squares to sound off with the same coarse "straight talk" as our current president-elect.

[...] As a scholar of journalism and digital discourse, the crucial point about online comment forums and social media exchanges is that they have allowed us to be not just consumers of news and information, but generators of it ourselves. This also gives us the unbridled ability to say offensive things to wide, general audiences, often without consequences. That's helped blow the lid off society's pressure cooker of political correctness. Doing so on news websites gave disgruntled commenters (and trolls) both a wider audience and a fig leaf of legitimacy. This has contributed to a new, and more toxic, set of norms for online behavior. People don't even need professional news articles to comment on at this point. They can spew at will.

Freedom of speech is only for approved narratives. Miss America explained it best in Bananas.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:55PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:55PM (#446751) Journal

    I just wanted to reply and say "thank you" for an insightful and well-argued perspective. I don't agree with everything you said, but I understand the argument for the most part. And, to me, this sort of post is the exact opposite of what's being complained about in the summary.

    The question, for me, is what percentage of the "alt-left" (as you dub them) are intolerant of perspectives expressed in this way. I think some are (and I know some people very well who would be simply dismissive of what you said), but I also think there are plenty of "liberals" or left-leaning folks who dismiss the other side NOT because of the arguments, but because of the way they are expressed.

    For example, there's certainly an important debate we should have about why female college graduations are growing faster than men (and to be clear, that's what's going on for the most part -- male college enrollment has also been trending upward; female enrollment just is trending upward faster) -- but if you want to have that debate, it isn't going to help when talking to somebody who holds a different view to start out with sexist jokes, screaming about SJWs and the evils of feminism. I know professional women who are now nearing the end of their careers but who put up with all sorts of crap 40 years ago that was so far over the top and beyond the way men are sometimes de-privileged today. There WAS a reason feminism was needed for a long time to overcome clear biases about women, and there are clearly communities and entire countries today where that is still strongly needed.

    But I'm not here to debate feminism. I'm pointing out that the response to what some clearly view as an overly aggressive feminism is not helped by acting like a stereotypical sexist jerk. All it does is alienate most people who may have been open to a more rational discussion. So, while I can understand where "misogyny" comes from as a response to extremist feminism, it still doesn't make misogyny right or useful in rational debate. If you just want two sides to scream at each other, sure. But I think we'd have a better chance of addressing the concerns of BOTH sides if we weren't just screaming at each other without any respect or attempt to communicate effectively.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:04PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:04PM (#446853) Journal

    Thank you for elevating the discourse here.

    There's certainly a troll contingent on both sides, but to say that one party wins elections because of them is rather daft.