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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:28AM
(**%&*^(&)*)*%%$111(*^%&*%&$&&&!!1
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:54AM
You seem to be having connection problems. Maybe try again at a lower baud? :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:30AM
I'm glad you've committed to improving your posting quality. This is much better than your usual comments.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday December 30 2016, @04:46AM
For once, I was aiming for your reading level. Happy to oblige!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:58AM
That about sums it up, right enough. 2016: the year that Alt-Stupid won.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @12:52PM
Yeah yeah, I know I need to get going on learning Perl 6.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:41AM
Am i being tricked into a flame war about conflicting opinions again
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:47AM
Yeah
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by http on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:41AM
Nope.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:41PM
Yes! You're worse than Hitler if you believe otherwise!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:56AM
This also gives us the unbridled ability to say offensive things to wide, general audiences, often without consequences.
Yeah, see. Problem is that trying to restrict that basically means that you must submit to the government's line of thinking.
Fuck that.
These days, having a dissenting opinion is considered "hatred." Cutting out online comments was an attempt to prevent people from expressing opinions contrary to those dictated from the media. The irony of course is lost on those who have disabled comments sections, usually accompanied by a post chastising the masses for disagreeing with their narrative, the writer completely oblivious of their own bully pulpit as they seek to deny it to others.
I'm not willing to submit to thought policing because a few special snowflakes got their ridiculously frail, outrage-primed 'feelings' hurt. I'm not the only one.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:00AM
When I call out the special snowflakes, it's because I am a legend in my own mind.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:16AM
That is unfortunate for you, and I hope for successful therapy resulting in your speedy recovery. Fortunately most people can use "special snowflakes" and many other terms without implying that they suffer from a mental illness.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:11AM
Special snowflakes... as in SJW'ers?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:41AM
The snowflakes are the ones who go on and on and on the most about "PC" ruining everything. Tell it like it is and call them out on being the delusional bigots they are instead of the PC-approved terms they demand to be called by and watch them flip the fuck out. Its hilarious how the ones who denigrate "PC" the most are the ones most insistent to be called by PC-approved terms instead of the terms that most accurately and precisely describe them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:47AM
Snowflakes seem to congregate in jmorris's rectum, since his shit is as cold as ice. It causes him no end of pain, what with the sharp pointy ends and whatnot.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:17AM
I didn't think it was so much "disagreeing with their narrative"?
Weren't many comments sections taken down due to trolling (and the reactions of the unwitting troll-ees), and also some small fraction of comments that were batshit crazy, off the tracks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:14AM
That depends on what you mean by "trolling." In most cases I've seen personally, a lot of the time forceful disagreement or outright disagreement was classified as trolling.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:33AM
I see articles that are likely to result in incorrect views to have the comment section disabled proactively.
After all, we can't possibly talk about how the various candidates aren't qualified to be President, that would be sexist. It leads to a situation where nobody is able to attach things to articles to indicate that they're biased. As a result, the Clinton's get an advantageous article up and nobody can dissent. Had those posts been allowed, people might have realized what a shitty candidate she was when there was still a chance of doing something about it.
Likewise, people would have had a chance to point out that Trump is probably no more racist than most 70 year olds and that his positions on various GLBTQ issues were grossly distorted by the press to sell newspapers. He's going to be a deeply problematic President, but probably not in the ways that people were predicting during the election. Or at least, not necessarily just in the ways people predicted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:39AM
Ahh, I see you have been modded 'flamebait' for 'fueling hatred' because you wrote something that some individuals are still in denial about:
No accurate assessments can be tolerated, especially not by the 'tolerant left' who cannot tolerate the idea it was they that won Trump the White House. No, No, NO... it's off to online commenters gulag for you my friend!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:54AM
True but around here he's half likely to end up scored 5 Flamebait.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:24PM
That's one of the reasons why I tolerate the trolling and some of the shit posters, it at least means there's some possibility of coming across some actual thought provoking comments rather than the approved comments that just go on about how great the article was and serve to form an echo chamber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:12PM
Indeed, he is a master baiter.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:55PM
> [...] his positions on various GLBTQ issues were grossly distorted by the press [...]
More important than what Mr. Trump said is his choice of Mike Pence as his running mate.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:48AM
No, that was the justification. The genuinely bad comments are easy to moderate because there aren't that many edgelords on the Internet compared to normies. Problem is that the "hateful comments" that the media wants to restrict are statements like "unrestricted immigration is bad" or "Brexit will be good for Britain" or "Trump is not a racist".
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:34PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:26PM
That would be an insult to the equine posterior.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:44PM
A human still needs to do the moderation, though. And as we all know, businesses love spending money on humans that don't add anything to the bottom line.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:53PM
not really, many, if not most, of the sites who have eliminated comments or relegated them to farcebook, do so because their readers were collectively smarter and more informed than the writers, and they HATED being called out on their shitty reportage...
based on a true story...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:43PM
I thought it was spambots mostly... because it was either that or an authentication system that sucks if the moderators are not doing their jobs or if there are no moderators. I will never train googles AI so I can post somewhere; I will never register with a phone or give out my phone number or real name so I can post some comment on a news site or blog. It's too much to ask.
Anyway I guess the places where I visit, people are not posting stupid things most of the time, and at those places, spambots were the worst issues.
Differences in opinion are common and not to be avoided; ads for women's shoes and penis pills (strong enough for a man, but made for women?) and so on... I mean without a quality system in place, it's either accept the spambots or accept google or facebook or even linkedin now. it all boils down to authentication, and the most acceptable to the public is authentiation to show you the correct narrative's advertising. So, i refuse it all!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by http on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:13AM
You seriously do not understand the situation. Shut up, please, as anyone with half a brain and half an education doesn't buy it. Or maybe you do understand the situation, and are simply malicious - out to offend on purpose. In which case, right back at ya, moron. It's not dissent per se that's offensive.
Wanting a discussion free of your fermented shit doesn't make someone a special snowflake. It makes them a human who values discourse. Restricting special snowflakes like you who go out of their way to make everyone else have to wade through vomit and worse to engage in the discussion is hardly a demand to think the way the government wants you to. If you had something valuable to say, it would have come through even if you swore like a sailor.
And no, you're not the only one, since stupid loves company. But it's a really small company.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:28AM
It is. Pointless and obnoxious comments are being used as justification to shut down informed comments that disagree with the official narrative.
Yes it does! [youtube.com]
Which is why news sites that disable comments are no longer on many peoples reading lists.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:05AM
Shut up, please, as anyone with half a brain and half an education doesn't buy it.
If that were true, we wouldn't have a story complaining about such things in the first place.
Wanting a discussion free of your fermented shit doesn't make someone a special snowflake. It makes them a human who values discourse.
Just not YOUR discourse.
And no, you're not the only one, since stupid loves company. But it's a really small company.
Yes, I'm quite sure those hordes of imaginary smart people will back you up on that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:31AM
The continual cry of the stereotypical SJW - "get educated!," in particularly lengthy form, second only to "check your privilege!" and “kill yourself!”
Well, you may be disappointed I’m not going to kill myself, even though you refrained from using that particular piece of canned insult, but in terms of being educated? I am. Perhaps not to your standards, but education does not flow solely from the font of professors who build their knowledge base and careers on a mountain of identity politics and the demagoguery of regressive candidates. Arguably that’s more rhetoric for specific political ends than any actual transference of knowledge, skill or theory. Pointing out that Hillary is a liar, thief, and incompetent is not sexist, for instance, whether or not the Russians were the ones that released the e-mails (and believing they did not, and not taking the word of the current administration that they did, is not sexist, either). Yet, on many of the boards silencing replies, this would often get the comment removed on the grounds of being sexist (and possibly racist if she weren’t white), and altogether be considered “bad behavior” for not following what I am told blindly.
I’d tell you to “stop talking” yourself, but since your only defense thus far is a smattering of insults boiling down to a wordier version of “you’re stupid! Get educated!” with no indication that you yourself have any better knowledge, or indeed, beliefs at all that aren’t simply part of the narrative you have by all indications been completely indoctrinated into, it’s pretty clear you’re never going to stop talking. It’s the only way you can drown out anything that might make you question your own opinions, not to mention questioning if they are in fact actually your own and not someone else's.
I look forward to the retort, should there be one, since it will likely boil down to more attempts to call me names in a desperate attempt to drown out the disagreement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:24PM
I look forward to the retort, should there be one, since it will likely boil down to more attempts to call me names in a desperate attempt to drown out the disagreement.
You're a special snowflake. Does that qualify as desperate name-calling?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:52PM
I read Drudge on a daily basis and always click on the clickbait/flamebait articles to read the amusing comments and to skewer antediluvian thinkers who form the bulk of Drudge's readership. It never gets old to see the bright lights carefully differentiate forms of government in America ("It's a Republic, not a Democracy!") but then turn around and conflate socialism with fascism. Truly they are the dross that settled out of the Melting Pot.
They have gotten, though, much better and milder than they have been for years. Still the mainstream media sites have turned off comments because they have bucked their narrative. In other words, people were telling them how awful Hillary was, and why, and explaining why they were going to vote for Trump, but they didn't want to hear it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:36PM
Fascism is not Socialism.... but they are on the same family tree and pretty close. Some of us can actually read, and we know the Italian Fascists forked off of Socialism, The Nazi's have Socialist right there in the branding and Bernie Sanders probably agrees with all of their platform if you only leave out the parts that hates on Jews, like Bernie. Or who knows, most prog Jews are of the self hating sort so who knows, he might be willing to go whole hog.
You see, that gets to the heart of this debate. Yo! Listen up legacy Progressive media and academic types. We reject you. We reject you guys when you proclaim yourselves THE authority, THE judges of what the terms of "legitimate" debate are, THE source of wisdom, etc. We reject your authority, we reject your claims to competence. Your day is done. We abjure thee, return to the Pit from whence ye came.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:29PM
Oh dear.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 30 2016, @12:26AM
They're not in the same ballpark at all. They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Socialism grew out of Marxist thinking, Fascism out of Nietzschean. Saying "National Socialism" proves Hitler was a communist also then proves that the German Democratic Republic was a liberal democracy and a wonderful place to live. Neither is true.
In fact one of the justifications Hitler and the Nazis gave for exterminating the Jews (among the many groups of undesireables they exterminated) was that they were trying to insinuate Bolshevism (aka Socialism) everywhere they were.
As for the rest of what you wrote, well, it seems to me you have not had much contact with academia because your portrayal of them is simple. Academics say a lot of things on a lot of subjects and quite disagree most of the time. About the only thing they share is a love and respect for erudition and a delight in intellectually rigorous debate. It's ludicrous to cast such creatures as calling themselves, "THE authority, THE judges of what the terms of the 'legitimate' debate are, THE source of wisdom." They can barely agree on what to have for lunch.
Of course it's natural to feel threatened by people who think deeply and are careful to say things supported by facts and evidence, when you live your life inside a Pavlovian response matrix. The big words, precise terms, and complex concepts they use can leave a person puzzled and staring dumbly, the way a grandmother does when looking at source code.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:35PM
These days, having a dissenting opinion is considered "hatred."
Do you see no difference between?
1) "Your opinions on laissez-faire economic policy have been proven incorrect in history. Look what happened during the Gilded Age and the subsequent Great Depression. The currency contractions creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and a spiral of poverty, as discussed in..."
2) "Laissez-faire capitalism has been discredited among all serious economists for years."
3) "LOL, Laissez-faire capitalism in 2016."
4) "Only idiots believe in Laissez-faire capitalism. You are a moron."
5) "You should get cancer and die in a fire."
6) "Hey, Anonymous Coward lives at 123 Main Street. Somebody should go kill him!"
I don't know the solution, but saying all negative speech online is just people being hyper-sensitive is clearly not true. If you've spent any time on Reddit, Twitch, IRC, news forums, or anything else you'd know that. I'm sure you've met countless trolls, who do things "for the lulz," if not outright having an agenda of some kind or another.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29 2016, @03:46AM
I live at 123 Main Street, you inconsiderate clod.
And according to Google, (About 6,790,000 results) there are quite a few of us ACs at that address...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:21AM
Classic Woody Allen intellectual comedy. It's funny but it also cuts deep, and doesn't exempt liberals (or conservatives) from the implied criticism.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:18AM
If people feel that they are being deliberately hushed, then their views will become ever more radical.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:29AM
I used to delve into the BBC comment section but it is so so terrible. Nothing of use there at all, it's better to remove it. Someone who wants to spew vomit should not be given a piggy-back on a highly visited site like BBC. They should have to earn their clicks by getting alt.hate.24-7 into the top ranked sites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:33PM
People don't hate for no reason. Dismissing their complaints does not dismiss the underlying cause of their behavior.
Besides, they'll just organize themselves elsewhere, and probably in an echo-chamber, which will have even worse consequences than simply rustling the jimmies of the ignorant fools who think the world isn't as bad as it really is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:10PM
You're right. Hatered usually follows from ignorance, as well as bigotry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29 2016, @05:30AM
No. Hatred usually follows from imposition.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:45AM
And hence removed the power brokers whose only job was stealing power from common people by defining what is politically correct and what is not.
The whole bunch of professions around it are being obsolete that is by design and will of the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:30AM
Cuban, Cuban, do we need say more than, Cuban? Will of the people, for a revolution to kick the bautistas the hell off our island, if not off the planet. Yee-haaa! Cuba Libre!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:01AM
Duuuude... Its - Cuban - Cigar - btw, one the finest cigars that were banned until very recently.
It didn't help Obama, btw.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:02AM
You're missing the key element here. The same people who freed up trade of your namesakes are the ones who want to ban tobacco products entirely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:40AM
I got myself banned from posting comments on the Guardian's web site, ostensibly for derailing a religious discussion. Giles Fraser wrote yet another team of hogwash and I felt like taking the Mickey.
I never used to engage in discussions on general news sites, but the run up to Brexit with the glut of Alt-Stupid and outright fascist propaganda posted incessantly by semi-literate idiots needed some sort of balance.
Then Trump came along. And the place is full of Putin Bots too.
What a sad world we live in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:00PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:49PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:51PM
My first slashdot account, which had really good karma, got set to post at 0 perpetually. I was very critical of Bill Gates, Microsoft, the intel itanic and IBM.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:38PM
So you decided to give SN the benefits of your insights and wide experience.
Lucky, lucky us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:49PM
Funny thing is, I got banned despite being a lefty Liberal fascist Islington elite limp-wristed bleeding heart traitor quisling. That was my point.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:40PM
He learned his lesson: now there's no user to ban.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:21AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:32AM
We don't all want to be put in charge. We don't all want to take credit for wonderful ideas and insight. We do want our fellow human beings to think hard before they vote, though, or influence the policies of political parties.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:08AM
Yup. For proper discussions, we're about as heavily posted as I can see us reasonably being on contentious matters. We could handle at most a 2x regular poster increase before most comments essentially became write-only like they are at the really large discussion sites.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:42AM
"There’s never been anybody I hated as much as Trump." [bostonherald.com]
From the first article:
His daily information intake comes from Facebook, Fox News and The Drudge Report, and he’s convinced of “liberal media bias,” especially from newspapers with left-leaning editorial boards.
As opposed to those whose daily information intake comes from Facebook, NPR, and The Bezos Post, and are convinced that "anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism [are] simmering within the citizenry" thanks to anything other than the policies of the last few decades.
Yes, people are angry at things like Wall Street reaping trillions off everyone else while producing nothing. Yet the Democrats selected the candidate closest to Wall Street in a "change" election.
Yes, people are condescending against the attitude of the cosmopolitan media that regards their contracting industrial area as "flyover country" which is to be disregarded. Or that considers all white men to have an advantage regardless of class or upbringing.
Yes, people have misogyny when they see that "equality between the genders" means endless complaints about "glass ceilings" when women are now the majority of college graduates.
Yes, people are paliophilic and would prefer their children not have to compete against newcomers and their children for already scarce jobs and housing. The Alt-Left is paliophobic and openly anti-white at times.
Yes, people are racist, but no more than the Alt-Left that shouts "racism!" every time a black man is arrested for killing another black man by a white cop. There's never any self-reflection about why immigrants can do better than native black Americans, nor their anti-educational culture where being intelligent is "acting white".
Yes, people are nativist, because American Exceptionalism means we're already perfect and don't need anything else in our melting pot. Nor do they believe that "diversity is our strength" or other catchphrases.
The country would be a lot better off if Kansas could be Kansas and New York could be New York without abortion access being forced on Kansas or gun access being forced on New York. The now-disregarded strength and selling point of the Constitution was that it limited the Federal Government to some areas and left subjects on lower tiers of government so that each state could be an incubator for new ideas.
Federal Matters: Military, Diplomacy, Currency, External Tarriffs, etc.
State Matters: Most other areas, see the 10th Amendment.
Local Matters: Whatever the States decide they should devolve to them.
Instead, the Federal Government decrees what it will, and the States have no say in the matter.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @12:01PM
Sorry, neither my left nor my right Alt key shows any sign of what people frequently assign to them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:31PM
"Alt-right" = Fascist
"Left", "Leftist", "Alt-left", etc = everyone who isn't a fascist
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:59PM
"Alt-right" = Fascist
"Left", "Leftist", "Alt-left", etc = everyone who isn't a fascist
Not being a fascist doesn't mean that I'm going to have anything to do with far-left nonsense. Always acting like there is no middle makes you as bad as the far right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:35PM
Fascism is a synonym for collectivism. The correct usage of the term [wikipedia.org] would include the judicial system, liberal media and so called anti-fascist groups. Kindly forgive my employ of individual liberty to correct your assertions:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:55PM
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.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 28 2016, @09:04PM
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.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:36PM
As opposed to those whose daily information intake comes from Facebook, NPR, and The Bezos Post, and are convinced that "anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism [are] simmering within the citizenry" thanks to anything other than the policies of the last few decades.
Those people aren't president-elect. You think it's OK for the president to be no more informed than random idiots on the innertube?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:49PM
Clearly more Trumpsters than liberals are SN mods.
BFD
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:56PM
As opposed to those whose daily information intake comes from Facebook, NPR, and The Bezos Post, and are convinced that "anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism [are] simmering within the citizenry" thanks to anything other than the policies of the last few decades.
I really hate false equivalency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @12:29PM
To suss the mindset behind the "hate speech" and "fake news" debate, one need only examine how the words of Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Ambrose Bierce, and H.L. Mencken are treated in modern academic circles. Non-PC dissent is not to be tolerated, no matter how valid or finely crafted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:07PM
Perhaps by virtue of the fact that it is "non-PC" in the first place that strongly suggests it is arbitrarily and vindictively denigating some particular demographic? In other words, it's bullying and hate speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:35PM
"In other words, it's bullying and hate speech"
"Waaah! Mom! I'm offended! Waaaah! I'm triggered!" quoth the snowflake.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:46PM
"Snowflake," like, "SJW," is a pejorative term, devoid of value, and disqualifies the poster from further participation in the discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:31PM
Yes, GP should have used more acceptable pejoratives like Nazi, Fascist, bigot, etc. In the Brave New Animal Farm, some pejoratives are more equal than others.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:54PM
Well, it's good to be accurate. If you loosely and incorrectly call someone a nazi, it dilutes the meaning of that term. That's dangerous.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:49PM
Like most alt-right people, you're half way to catching on, but then you stop dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:49PM
Perhaps by virtue of the fact that facts themselves are now considered "non-PC", the person standing up against bullying and censorship is the truth speaker?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:05PM
the true propaganda coup is the doublespeak of referring to DNC controlled propaganda sites as news sites. They're not news, they're just Democratic party propaganda organs.
Likewise "anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism" is just dog whistle for lefties meaning "not anti-white enough". Those values are cherished and celebrated by the left when, say, a Muslim or Black or Jew hold them.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:10PM
Woof! Woof! Grrrr....
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:44PM
It's best to shoot for examples, and hopefully there will be plenty. I'd like to supply two of those example things.
First up, we have a small-ish return of racial segregation. There's the Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community [nbclosangeles.com] as requested by the CSULA Black Student Union at Cal State LA [abc7.com]. Particularly amusing was this quote referenced in both links:
Jonathan Thomas, a freshman living in the dorm, said it wasn't about segregation. Thomas, who is studying communications, said the dorm was a place for him to feel safe. He said anyone was welcomed in the dorm.
"I think that's like a really loaded word, and even I'm using it, but it's not segregated, not at all in my opinion," Thomas said. "I don't know where that assumption even came from."
See also University of Connecticut's [fox61.com] ScHOLA²RS House [uconn.edu] (need a \newcommand here if I have to type that again).
ScHOLA²RS House is a Learning Community designed to support the scholastic efforts of male students who identify as African American/Black through academic and social/emotional support, access to research opportunities, and professional development.
(Be careful with identifying there! Being trans-black or whatever gets you chewed out and humiliated by Jessica Williams on national TV! No, no, no, don't read too much into that. I just think it's amusing. But hey, if somebody can provide the preliminary MRI imaging study to show me I shouldn't laugh, I keep an open mind!)
Second, I must keep revisiting the M&Ms. As I'm sure we're all aware, once upon a time a bunch of assholes wrote a book called Der Giftpilz [archive.org] (often translated as “toadstool,” lit. poisonous mushroom). Moral of the story was “with Jews you lose.” Many years later, we learn that men are a lot like poisoned M&Ms [slate.com]:
Third, the people saying [#notallmen] aren’t furthering the conversation, they’re sidetracking it. The discussion isn’t about the men who aren’t a problem. (Though, I’ll note, it can be. I’ll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying.
"UNFAIR! NOT ALL MEN!" Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen
— Martin Wagner (@wagnerfilm) May 26, 2014
For irony top score, one will note that the article and the tweet were both written by men. I could elaborate about how this is exemplary of “white knight” behavior where the One Good Man must protect the Hunnies, but that's a rant for another time. Anybody who believes in gender equality would be wary (and weary perhaps) of falling into the trap of protecting the Hunnies, a term I hope is utterly degrading.
However, as it turned out, who was it, one of Trump's kids? tweeted about Skittles and was promptly eviscerated by the moon matrix media who suddenly remembered Der Giftpilz and how this line of reasoning was Nazi propaganda.
If there's one sweeping generalization I can make to be absolutely fair, it appears that humans are just all racists (and sexists)! These are things we should strive to overcome, not embrace.
(Yeah, I probably have no right to write that last sentence.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:59PM
You were doing ok with the first sentence. This election did reveal that. But it's more accurate to say that they are propaganda for the elites, who control both parties.
You are being quite loose with the rest, though. There are real reasons why those terms exist, and you mushing them together does not invalidate them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:48PM
What are you even talking about? Are you reading this from somewhere? You could easily change your pronouns and fit into alt-right or alt-left. This has to be the most generic attack I've seen lately because it's pandering to the speaker. All you need to do it adlib it.
Think more often please; sometimes you do and it is nice to read that. This crap you just posted is just copy and paste propaganda that you use to... call out propaganda?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29 2016, @02:46AM
I agree on your point about the news. But almost all of them are like that. I am still looking for a 'fair' news site. Have been looking since about 98.
News has long since about commercials.
Someone put it best. When did news stop being about interviewing witnesses and started being about journalists interviewing other journalists.
Also things like 'dog whistle' and 'fake news' are propaganda in of themselves to let people dismiss news they do not like.
Turn off the 'news'. You will not miss much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:54PM
I see we nailed this topic with the kind of thoughtful give-and-take we always see for these type of posts.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:35PM
I know such discussions often lead to shouting contests ("Those darn Trump fans!" "No, you're all Leftists fascists who don't want to hear dissenting views!"). But is there at least the possibility that both sides have legitimate points here??
I certainly think so. I'll defend free speech as a legal doctrine anywhere, and I'll argue against anyone who wants government censorship of speech. I'll also strenuously argue for the value of public (and private) forums where all speech is welcome and "there are no rules."
On the other hand, I also have seen discussions taken over by a group of jerks who are more interested in disrupting things than having discussion. Is there a place for that? Sure. But I personally prefer NOT to participate in a place with that sort of pervasive trolling. I find it tiresome.
And again, I'm absolutely NOT talking about suppression of VIEWPOINTS. I'm talking about being a jerk and deliberately inciting flamewars rather than having a discussion about different views.
There's a difference (to me) between "political correctness" in the sense of liberal "policing" of discourse vs. simple civility and rational discourse. One can actually express very "un-PC" viewpoints without NECESSARILY acting like an ass. One can (at least in theory) argue in favor of racism, sexism, White Nationalism, or whatever on the merits -- but instead it seems TFA is at least getting at an important point about how such discussions seem to degenerate into trolling instead. (And yes, it is certainly possible for leftist folks to troll too in such ways -- I've seen it. But the vast majority of it seems to come from the other side....)
To come at it from a different perspective, some people like a quiet working environment. They're happiest in a library or whatever. Others need noise and bustle, and would happily be immersed in a group with loud music blaring. Both are legitimate preferences, and both have different social norms. And if the librarians took over the world, I can see the need perhaps for some pushback.
But it seems that many forums today are going further -- beyond just being "anti-PC" (which I personally agree with, to the extent that "PC" is sometimes a synonym for suppression of non-liberal views), it leads to forums which become completely dysfunctional in terms of reasoned discourse. The library-preference folks find it harder to find a place. NOT a "safe space" where only views they like can be aired -- just a place that isn't overrun by jerks and trolls.
For one example, I saw it happen on the Dan Carlin forums. They were hosted by Dan Carlin, a guy who has two relatively popular podcasts ("Hardcore History" and "Common Sense"). I never participated much there, but several years back it used to be a rather cool place for historical discussion. Dan definitely encouraged a "no rules" environment that led to intense debates. Yes, it sometimes degenerated into insulting and flaming (as all online forums sometimes do), but there was also a lot of smart, interesting discussion.
But he ended up shutting the forums down a few weeks ago, after a decade or whatever. I know why, because when I visited the forums a few months back, they seem to have become taken over by a bunch of trolls who were more interested in in-jokes and over-the-top insults and takedowns than they were in actually talking about anything. For every informative post, there were now like 25 BS back-and-forths about nothing. And a lot of it (though not all) was exacerbated by Trump fans in the past year.
Do I defend the LEGAL right of these people to say whatever they want? Of course. Should they have other forums hosted online where they can say what they want? Of course! But I also lament the fact that they ruined what used to be an interesting and rather unique community for discussion of rather arcane historical topics, etc. That old forum had some value too.
To me, this issue has NOTHING to do with viewpoints. It has to do with people who are jerks and just like to act like jerks. I'm happy they have forums to act however they want, and I'll defend the right for such forums to exist. But I personally am more interested in engaging in reasonably civil discourse. When things cross that line (and it DOES seem to be happening more frequently now, and it IS OFTEN correlated with Trump supporters), that -- to me -- is a concerning trend. Not the Trump stuff. The flight from rational argumentation and degeneration into name-calling, flamewars, etc.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:10PM
Well. It's to be expected given the direction and...quality of the summary (no I didn't RTFA): backlash, backlash, backlash. And I can't actually refute any of it, because this whole thing is based on gut feelings.
Where's the data? Where are the first-hand accounts of people who disabled their comment sections, presented next to the actual discussions they felt got out of hand? Where are the accounts of commenters on both sides of these discussions, difficult to track down though they may be?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:28PM
I would like to propose that maybe the problem here isn't something about professional narratives vs. real public opinion, or anything about PC at all. The real problem is the "global" part. PC only exists when your audience is too large to know what they actually want. Posting bullshit is only entertaining when a bunch of strangers are going to get butthurt about it.
It cuts both ways. Commenters aren't the only ones with a global voice, after all. Everybody with that much power inevitably wants to use it, and most of us don't really know what it's good for.
I really think that the strongest benefit of SoylentNews is the small size of the community. Make news smaller. Build communities small enough for people to recognize each other frequently. Cross-fertilize those communities to get more perspectives without anonymizing them. The world would be a whole lot better if instead of trying to make our kingdoms bigger, we just had more kingdoms coexisting peacefully.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?