SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.