Despite the title, it sounds like this post is concerned with web material thatâs just bad in general, regardless of trying to bait any particular response, and particularly the problem of moderating it, i.e. when/how to identify and take down such material when itâs presented more covertly. This seems at odds with how the advice at the end is more geared toward individually avoiding it when itâs obvious, i.e. personally not clicking on stuff that you already know is going to upset you. Those scenarios are both worth talking about, but theyâre really two different problems.
Anyway, thereâs a valuable point in there about how nostalgia can lend itself to conservative romanticization of the past/appeals to tradition â I imagine that subject could have been the basis of a whole post by itself.
at risk of being overly dismissive, iâm fairly exhausted with this (in my opinion) vestigial web 2 instinct to insist upon âengagingâ with or policing right-wing narratives or misinformation by trying to âplay the refs,â so to speak.
part of the point of retreating from mainstream platforms is to create truly democratized digital spaces that donât turn on the whims of this or that oligarch, and acting like itâs somehow a âdisadvantageâ of the small web that there isnât some all-powerful authority that can smite âhate speechâ (an extraordinarily fraught and oft-abused term that only seems to get more so with time) is totally absurd to me.
ârage baitâ doesnât need to be dealt with in the indie web - thatâs part of the beauty of it. here, platform owners arenât locking me into a cage with a bunch of insane grifters in order to have access to a broader digital community, or introducing wild perverse incentives that encourage the production of rage bait in the first place. instead, if i see a post i think is dumb, i can simply⌠not go there. there is no algorithmically optimized infrastructure in the indie web to goad me into engaging with it.
furthermore, independent digital communities have total control over who they let into their ranks, and if youâre in a community that is letting in a ton of bigots, you can - again - just walk. thereâs no platform lock-in whatsoever. itâs not like youâre going to lose access to your email contacts or bookmark list if you decide to leave a forum or delete your website.
i think this post is trying to haphazardly apply the (imo demonstrably failed and mostly worthless) âsafetyâ framework that proliferated across the web 2.0. platforms to address problems that were unique to their specific set of horrible incentives to the indie web, and it doesnât make any sense at all to me. take this paragraph:
And I think this is still something niche websites and forums or blogging services in the personal, smaller web are not well equipped to handle; the users even less so, because the usual blocking and reporting from the big social medias might not be an option.
âblockingâ and âreportingâ âŚlike, what? of course thereâs no âblockingâ or âreportingâ for bigoted personal websites - you simply donât put the url in the address bar anymore! am i meant to believe that the fact that independent websites canât be taken down by a bunch of self-appointed hall monitors (a web 2.0 system that, again, was ripe for abuse!) is a downside? that seems crazy to me. is there something here that iâm missing?
While leaving a community is an option, I think this part is worth discussing:
Admins and mods of forums, blog spaces, status sites, and webrings might find it difficult to judge when to exclude or ban a person for views expressed outside of their spaces and within a personal website.
Obviously we canât ban a website, but do we exclude or ban people with certain views from communities? Personally, I donât want to interact socially on a forum with someone who thinks feminism is evil and that Iâm lesser (or an [insert derogatory word I canât use], or unintelligent), even if they donât explicitly talk about it on the forum. Knowing that someone is sneering from behind nice words doesnât make you feel welcome, and Iâd be very sad if I had to leave a place like 32-Bit Cafe because the personâs views were expressed elsewhere and that meant it didnât break the rules.
I have a poor memory sometimes, and blocking on social media can help me remember to not pay attention to someone who says hurtful things. It can take me a minute to realize that Iâm on a website I donât want to be on, or that the person heading up a blog carnival prompt is someone I donât want to interact with. And itâs not just a matter of not putting a link in the address bar, since folks can link to the site easily.
Maybe I should think about blocking domains with a web extension and a noteâŚ
For the purpose of this response, I consider actively avoiding a controversial URL as a user to be the functional equivalent of blocking someone on standard fare social media platforms. Whether itâs done by a person intentionally avoiding clicking a URL (e.g. âI choose to avoid substack links because itâs a Nazi barâ, etc.) or via something more involved like an addon or firewall rule doesnât really change my perspective.
One of the key details here is who do we trust to police these kinds of things?
In hosted communities, trust is often placed in moderators who are still human beings capable of both honest mistakes and hidden biases. I imagine over time this will continue trending toward either âcommunity notesâ (i.e. majority dictates correctness) or automation (i.e. LLMs spin the wheel), neither of which Iâd consider good. As was mentioned above, this is also generally considered at the mercy of whoever administers the actual community (i.e. a step often above the moderators). For something like Meta, itâs Zuck and for Twitter, itâs Musk, but the general principle extends all the way down to just about any community that effectively relies on the whims of a âbenevolent dictator.â
If you encounter something you donât like in one of these communities, you have several forms of redress:
- If supported, block/filter the problematic user/content. This works for you, but may feel insufficient if your goal is to de-platform the source of the agitation (increase severity of this term to meet your feelings).
- If present, reach out to moderators via reporting tools (e.g. complaining about harassment, rule violations, etc.).
- If moderators fail to meet your expectations, reach out to the admins of the platform.
- If the admins of the platform fail to meet your expectations, youâre out of luck unless you escalate this to their service host (e.g. are they hosted on a Cloudflare, AWS, etc.? Contact them and complain).
Iâm leaving out a common tactic, which involves creating a groundswell of support via community action to try to force their hand (e.g. generate a popular movement to pressure leaders into capitulation).
The same concepts generally apply to personal web sites, except you have a few less options.
- Choose to avoid the problematic site (either manually or via automation).
- Reach out to the operator of their site if itâs not self-hosted (e.g. on BearBlog, contact Herman, etc.)
- Reach out to whoever operates their DNS (e.g. force them to switch hosts).
- Nuclear option, theyâre self-hosting everything, figure out their internet service provider and contact them.
More difficult, yes, but honestly I think thatâs a feature, not a shortcoming. That we have options when it comes to this is a good thing, but we canât put up a safety field around the entirety of the internet to try and control absolutely every negative interaction. Iâm all in favor of shunning bigots of all kinds and purveyors of hate, but I donât trust human beings or LLMs to manage any of this effectively at scale. And the more I think about any of this, the more I wind up thinking about Chinaâs social score.
First off, I feel this reduces people to a single aspect of their identity or opinions, disregarding the full spectrum of their thoughts, experiences, and contributions. Human beings are multi-dimensional. A person may hold problematic or harmful views in one area while being thoughtful, insightful, and even progressive in others.
I believe banning someone from a shared space (whose rules they respect ofc) exclusively for aspects of themselves expressed elsewhere is an incredibly sad missed opportunity. Opportunit-IES* (plural)!
Because they were removed, now youâve lost: Potential common ground (like, instead of a suburb, youâve created an urban / rural area), potential novel understandings (of each-other, ourselves, and the world, particularly because their ideas challenge ours), potential self-growth.
In truth, I find a little ironic your strategy for handling âclosed-mindednessâ is being closed-minded. Particularly towards the Rare! the Bold! individuals willing to venture away from their (more than ever!) polarized sides, to the ever-vanishing middle.
Dam, yo, I meet people halfway.
If that works for you, great!
In my case I have medical conditions that are worsened by emotional stress; it literally makes me sicker to read things that are upsetting. Obviously I work on things in therapy to have coping strategies for things I canât avoid, but when it comes to people online who think Iâm subhuman, Iâve decided what works best for me is to simply not engage with that. I donât owe anyone my limited energy and health in order to help teach them Iâm fully human.
But obviously not all communities will feel that way! I think itâs just important for communities to deliberately make that choice, knowing that welcoming people with certain views (even if only spoken elsewhere) may drive off some of us who donât want to deal with that lurking under the surface of every interaction.
EDIT: Of course, I want to be clear that Iâm talking about particularly virulent views. Itâs not âchallenging my ideasâ to call people like me slurs; thatâs challenging my existence. And frankly I donât think anyone with those sorts of views would listen to me if I stayed in a community like that, since Iâm one of the people they despise.
i donât think itâs possible to meet someone who considers you subhuman âhalfwayâ or find common ground! i do not think that âi am a person deserving of respectâ is an idea that needs to be âchallengedâ. it isnât closed-minded to not want to interact with someone who hates you, actually.
I think it depends on the shared space in question, to what degree it is a community and what kind of community it is / aims to be. In spaces which are more service-like than community-like, Iâd agree with you. Some spaces are also more public (corporate-owned and publicly accessible, like reddit and facebook) and Iâd apply your logic there too.
I think any given privately-run community (I consider all indieweb communities to be privately-run) has to be a tiny bit discriminate about who can exist in them, even despite the issues which could stem from this. I donât think that someone just following the rules of the space while theyâre in it is necessarily sufficient.
Silly example: I wouldnât want someone who kicks puppies to come to my dinner party, even if theyâre on their best behaviour that night-- it feels tantamount to tolerating them and what they like to do.
Agreed. Not every idea deserves to be met in the middle. â[Category of people] doesnât deserve human rightsâ is an objectively bad take that harms others, no matter how superficially âniceâ the person who holds such views is being.
And living in the southern US, Iâve had too much irl experience with people who are sugary-sweet on the surface but nasty underneath, to put up with it on the web. Obviously if Iâm just surfing websites, I can ignore bad stuff easily. But forums are a different story. Theyâre a shared space that must take precautions to remain safe and welcoming.
I agree with most of whatâs been written here and Iâm not in favor of asking anyone to simply âdealâ with people who are known to be abhorrent. I think thereâs general consensus around the difference in severity between (TW, ableist and hate speech) âanyone who uses Windows 11 is a moronâ and âtrans people donât exist.â Both are toxic, but one leaves no avenue for âmeeting in the middleâ as thereâs simply no middle to be found. To be clear, Iâm not suggesting that either is appropriate for community interactions, but I do feel that there are varying degrees of toxicity that can affect people differently (i.e. everyone has their own thresholds).
In terms of holding community leaders accountable in spaces that actually host content or allow for interactions (like 32bit.cafe, BearBlog, PIKA, Ghost, etc.), I agree with the spirit of the articleâs author; the fact that there isnât VC money in play or a billionaire in the background doesnât inherently protect these smaller, âindependentâ spaces from the kinds of negative interactions, toxicity and trauma. Protecting itself from that is a responsibility shared between the community itself and its leaders. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned the escalating pathways for doing so. The author is 100% correct that we shouldnât be naĂŻve to assume that small is good and somehow more impervious to bias and abuse.
My primary issue is with any attempt to apply the exact same kind of thinking to the open web; specifically, if Iâve got my own domain and my own hosting situation outside any of these platforms, big or small, then it isnât a flaw that you, as an independent viewer/reader/person/user canât as easily block me, filter me, or shut me down. I could continue rambling about this, but I mentioned in my previous comment the available options if you find content problematic.
TL;DR: Thereâs a difference between a hosted community and a standalone web site.
Weâve come to associate anything outside the big platforms as âindieâ, âsmolâ, or whatever, so itâs easier to lump everything into the âIndie Sceneâ and place expectations on how youâll interact. But the reality is that different spaces have different boundaries, constraints and rules. When it comes to URLs floating out in the ether, if you encounter something you find abhorrent, the first step is not visiting that URL again. The second step is likely telling others who are part of your communities about it so that they also know to avoid it. A third possible step could be complaining to their host if the content violates any of their principles (or countryâs laws).
While itâd be lovely to have the option of simply clicking a button and deleting someone guilty of hate speech off of the internet, I donât trust anyone with that power, not even myself.
I believe the increasing prevalence of hyperbole, especially online, has led to a growing tendency to frame disagreements in extreme terms. This escalation often prevents us from seeing the complexities of individuals and understanding the nuances of their thoughts. Rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue, it shuts conversations down before they even start, leading to entrenched positions and a lack of empathy. In many ways, this becomes a cycle of bad faith, where itâs easier to label someone as âotherâ or âwrongâ than to engage with them as a whole person.
The idea that we can reduce an individual to their flaws or lesser moments / ideas, using that to define them entirely (and, worse, eternally) isnât new. As the saying goes, âGive me the man, and I will give you the case against him.â Create narratives that oversimplify people and justify their exclusion, rather than trying to understand them as multidimensional individuals.
Doing this warps reality and makes it more difficult to build any kind of connection. It distorts truth, prevents us from finding common ground, and ultimately isolates us from each other; polarization. You can also call it the modern / corporate web; where the authorâs strategy is from. Where division generates clicks and likes.
I donât know. I believe in a Indie / Small / Personal Web that is more: intimate, authentic, compassionate, forgiving, complex, easy-going, welcoming, open-minded, real, than that.
But by all means, build your walls.
Imma build bridges.
i think youâre asking a lot of the average person to meet people with hateful ideologies halfway or come to an understanding on common ground somewhere else.
personally i feel that somewhere along these peopleâs lives theyâve had experiences that have shaped them into the person they are. and it shouldnât be on a single transgender person, a single disabled person, or really just a bunch of folks who make websites to help them understand the events in their lives that happened that lead them to hold these beliefs
i think far better resources for them to come to an understanding about why they think and feel the way they do about certain things or people exist and are readily available. i just personally think many of these people have chosen a poor coping strategy of reacting outward rather than using resources available to them to look inward at themselves
In defense of the original author, their concern seems to be about people who are actively engaging in bad faith. Those folks arenât likely to be receptive to bridge building.
The complexity is in how you discern between people who are willing to have a respectful conversation and those who are looking for attention or simply sealioning. Itâs a herculean task and one that lends itself to more and more people asserting a âblock firstâ mentality. Itâs unfortunate for many of reasons that @arevakhach describes, but I find it completely understandable.
Arguing with trolls can be exhausting. Arguing with people who openly hate you isnât any better. Itâs not a flaw that many folks would prefer not to deal with either. This isnât about Mac and PC folks meeting in the middle to share space in a public forum. Itâs often about people starting threads that challenge the rights of other humans to simply exist. I genuinely wish that I was being bombastic and just exaggerating for effect, but this isnât hyperbole.
When it comes to hosted communities, Iâm fully in support of following your ideals and pushing out extreme elements that 100% exist. Imagine someone shows up to your forum, is completely respectable on that forum, but it turns out that on their personal web site, they glorify hate (take your pick; for ease, letâs go with Nazism). If a community member discovers this, whatâs the right course of action? Iâd argue, remove the Nazi from the community, lest it become a Nazi community. Doing nothing once aware is silent acceptance. What if that person realized the error of their ways? Would we be robbing them of the opportunity to express that and move forward? Yes. Itâs not a perfect solution, but protecting your community from a legitimate threat should come first.
To be clear, I think weâre conflating quite a few things here.
A vigorous disagreement between multiple sides is not inherently bad. Allowing for conversation to exist and flourish so that each side can learn about the others can be beautiful. But this is getting lost in the conversation around:
- Rage-baiting (as per the OP), which implies that a party is intentionally saying something known to be disruptive for the purpose of achieving some goal. This is beyond a âdevilâs advocateâ situation; itâs being purposefully abrasive to cause attention, pain, and disruption, even if the views are not actually held by the poster.
- True hate speech which leaves no quarter for anything else.
I donât believe that anyone is advocating for a draconian situation where all dissent is banished. However, saying that doesnât necessitate the other extreme where all views are afforded the opportunity to exist and flourish. If youâre advocating harm, I personally donât believe you fundamentally have the right to a platform for it.
Just my (overly tired) rambling. Apologies if none of this is consistent or makes any sense.
I think someone who rage baits has two outcomes.
- good, they realize what they are doing is just overall dumb and grow out of it
- bad, they fall further into extremism and begin believe the views they are expressing due to support of others who hold those views or easy access to content that is supportive of those views
iâll also entertain a third outcome which is they just like being an asshole online and donât fall into extremism but also keep behaving negatively
both instances, hateful ideologies, and behavior that is disruptive to a community like rage baiting, need to be looked at through a lens of treatment and getting someone to understand what is leading them to behave or act this way
i feel strongly that both types of behavior if left unchecked or untreated can and has had real life consequences beyond a screen and keyboard that has cost innocent people their lives
i do not think the average person on the internet is equipped to reach a point of intervention with either types of these people. i will also not entertain the idea that sidestepping their negative behavior or outright hateful views to find common ground will solve anything as it allows that negative behavior, or hateful view to exist, still untreated
i want to see people get help, i want to see them get better and be better people. i just donât think that is on the average internet user, be it social media or the personal web
@n3verm0reâs response really nicely covers what I wanted to say in response to this. Itâs a huge challenge to provide the kind of space youâre asking for, on top of the existing huge challenge of forming and maintaining a community in the first place.
To be honest as well the âWell Iâm not going to change my views if nobody will debate with me on themâ line has been the concern troll party line for decades. It sounds very reasonable and rational to say that we should be open-minded and consider an argument for its merits rather than ignoring it entirely. But itâs often in the same breath as âBut you shouldnât be able to voteâ and itâs a nasty trick, isnât it?
FWIW Iâve spent a chunk of time in discourse with people like these and Iâve had a million times more luck in 1:1 conversation than I have had with public forum arguments. These kinds of debate are important but I really doubt it will ever be important that we have them publicly online. Thereâs a few charity organisations now which hire people to go online and engage with people one-one-one about these topics and theyâre a much better idea than taking a public space, accessible both to those who can and want to debate rationally and those who canât/donât want to, and trying to have it out there amid the chaos.
this I agree with 100%. Unfortunately, if you are receiving the hate, itâs really difficult to find it within yourself to overcome the differences and learn something new. Because frankly, I donât have to argue my existence. I would rather just walk away. If theyâre racist, think women are lesser than men, transphobic, ableist, etc, I donât care about their opinions â their worldview is so fucked that I canât even wrap my head around it. The only thing that theyâre going to learn from me is that they are wrong, my place is not to educate them.
So maybe what we need is some people who are willing to bridge the gap, and some people who arenât. I think having one universal accepted way of dealing with things is fooling yourself. Thatâs never going to happen. When has âthis is how I do itâ ever been a reason for everyone to do it that way universally? Stand in your truth, but allow other people to have theirs.
On the topic of moderation, Iâm very interested and following! I still have more to learn about how it works technically speaking for different spaces, but I also think @n3verm0re brought up a very good point about who is in charge of deciding the moderation rules? I can bring in an extreme example: thatâs what happened with Anonymous and QAnon (they decide who to punish, they are the moderators). Less extreme: Thatâs what has been happening recently with bluesky, and everyoneâs freaking out about it over there. Musk is making moderation decisions all the time. Moderating any space is going to cause conversation regardless of who is/isnât moderated, blocked, etc, and why. Itâs not like you join a moderation team and then suddenly become a really stellar example of a human being. Youâre still just a person with ideas and beliefs that are driving your moderation decisions.
If you (anyone) want a space that aligns with your particular preferences and worldviews, start one. You make the rules. You get to moderate. Unfortunately, itâs unrealistic to expect things to fall into place how you think they should. I donât agree with the idea of censoring simply because I disagree, so in line with what I said before, itâs my personal responsibility to step back and not look at stuff thatâs harmful to me. Itâs my personal responsibility to not join those conversations or entertain those ideas. Itâs my personal responsibility to do the work so that those kinds of things donât upset me quite as much. People are toxic, whether they are altright or not. Youâre going to encounter it everywhere.
Then again this is a really complex argument because that kind of free speech is how the alt-right was formed. I have opinions and I know where my personal boundaries are when it comes to engagement, but Iâm also still comprehending the full scope of this topic.
It sucks, you canât avoid it. I have memory issues too, I will never remember the username of somebody whoâs site I donât like and I will go to it 40 times before I realize. But thatâs just the nature of things. I donât expect somebody to block that so that I personally donât have to see it. The web is not a place to go to if you want controlled information. Thatâs what social media is for (increasingly). I chose to get off social media and join a community that shares ideas and information freely. I didnât choose to join a community that agreed with me on everything â if I wanted that, I wouldnât be on Neocities, thatâs for sure.
@n3verm0re said it best. rage-baiting, pure hate speech, and sincerely illegal content donât have a place anywhere on the web, but everything thatâs been talked about above seems to be less about trolling like the OP mentions and more about discussions with people who hold reactionary opinions.
in that vein, i wholeheartedly agree with @arevakhach about disagreements being framed in extreme terms. i say this with nothing but respect, but i think a lot of the âintolerable, utterly unspeakableâ opinions people mention are really just fringe and unpopular and are not at all equivalent to peopleâs âtheyâre wishing death upon me!â sentiments. but in saying that, i donât think itâs healthy - for any party - for people to engage with others whose opinions get their blood boiling. if someone truly believes they are in the presence of someone who wants their head on a pike, regardless of the verity of the notion, blocking or ignoring that person is imperative. i like my bridges just as much as i like my walls, and i pride myself in having a sturdy fortress.
for instance, i find conversations with virulent christians, homophobes, and racists hilarious at best and amusing at worst, but sexism makes me fly off the handle. i could not talk to a misogynist in good faith, and knowing this, i shut down conversation with people like this. bit of an aside, but i had a pro-lifer traditional conservative MAGA coworker who challenged me to a conversation about womenâs rights, and knowing i would go insane if i tried to talk about this with her, i told her that, respectfully, i am much too passionate about the subject and i would rather not compromise my amicable relationship with her. i had to say this multiple times even as she tried goading me into debating with her, but in the end nothing really happened, and we went about coexisting as usual.
i think itâs impossible to ask for or expect a space where everyone is going to have the exact same opinions and beliefs as you, yes even in communities that are built around a strict set of opinions and beliefs, and learning to coexist is an invaluable, necessary skill. thatâs not to say you have to be someoneâs friend or agree with them. thereâs no shame in knowing your limits and enforcing them when you need to and avoiding stressful situations - but i do think there is a deeply concerning knee-jerk reaction towards people who participate in âwrongthinkâ where we reduce them to less than the three-dimensional human beings they actually are and rush to point fingers. i donât think my coworker wished me harm despite her opinions, and thinking that and trying to get her banned from our workplace would have honestly been a callous and stupid reaction.
in my opinion, it shouldnât be that different in online spaces. unless someoneâs trolling and instigating off-topic, divisive discussions or for real posting pure hate speech where no productive discussion can occur, i find it harmful to exile people based on their opinions, even if theyâre flagrant. in the spirit of the true old web, donât like = donât read!
I think both these points are key for this conversation, as well as the notion of responsibility. The understanding/perspective Iâve built for myself is essentially a graph where one axis has âcomplete strangerâ on one end and âclose friend/familyâ on the other, while the other axis has âhates a group I have no practical relation toâ on one end and âhates me personallyâ on the other.
If someone in the âclose/hates a group I have no practical relation toâ quadrant starts spouting hate towards that group you have a level of responsibility to do what you can to get them out of that thought process (though it obviously is difficult and takes time). They most likely respect you and your opinion and as such there is a real chance of getting through to them with patience and the right methods, while cutting them off immediately is likely to push them further into any belief that opposes yours. Meanwhile, if a stranger is spouting hate more or less directly aimed at you? Block, report, move on with your life. Not your circus, not your monkeys.
The other two quadrants can be slightly more tricky to deal with. I personally feel a level of responsibility to steer my cousin and brothers away from misogynistic beliefs, even though Iâm generally perceived as a woman and donât mind identifying as such. Though they are at worst at âannoyingâ-levels of misogyny, not to a point where I need to feel worried for my safety, you know?
If a stranger spouts garbage about a group I am not part of I am somewhat likely to just block either way since I usually am on sides of the internet where that happens to chill, but if it is someone who is slightly closer to me (say, an acquaintance or a classmate or whatever) I may at least do a simple âHey, that joke isnât coolâ/âI donât think thatâs reasonable to sayâ or so.
But in the end changing anyoneâs mind is hard and I am nowhere near as good at speaking my mind on this kinda stuff as I maybe ought to be. Every situation is also different, Iâm sure I can come up with a thousand exceptions to my general thought process. And really, the source of it is just âvibesâ, so yk
Iâve been thinking a lot about these kinds of issues, especially since reading the replies within the If youâve signed up for Bluesky, youâve signed up for offloadable moderation thread. Handling what the author talks about within this article (and the related one that she linked to) can be tough no matter how you approach it.
I appreciate everyoneâs insights into the matter though. It actually highlights the strength of having differing views while still being respectful in sharing them. That sort of balance can be tricky to achieve. Sometimes you have to separate yourself from things that are toxic for the sake of your own safety and sanity. There is no shame in that. Yet at the same time, shutting something out doesnât necessarily make it go away. We still have to share the world with people who might be indifferent to our struggles, want to take advantage of us, hate us for whatever reason, etc. Those are things that we cannot control directly, but we can control our response to them. And therein lies the greatest opportunity for lasting change in my opinion.
I feel that a lot of issues exist/persist because their very existence is never really addressed, or if it is, it is done in a superficial and dismissive way. It requires incredible amounts of self-reflection and compassion sustained over a long period of time to effect constructive changes sometimesâŚ
Content/Trigger Warning: I am going to describe quite a few takes that might seem 'hot' on their surface. I am not enumerating my personal beliefs or experiences here, but simply trying to give insight into a wider social context with an eye towards mutual peace and understanding. While I will try to be tasteful, it will touch upon subjects that may be uncomfortable. It might also be completely misunderstood, but I am willing to take that risk to get important points across. Please feel free to skip it if you would rather focus on something else. Resources/references throughout, summary at the end.
When one is excluded or rejected from most social interactions or public forums for whatever reason, they often end up on the outskirts where âanything goesââŚand Iâm not just talking about flouting âterms of serviceâ or âmoderationâ online, but also âlawsâ offline. Is it really any surprise that places that hold fast to âthe free speech fallacyâ end up filled with the stuff that no other place will allow? Things that are repressed eventually bubble up to the surface whether we like it or not.
Example #1: If you get kicked out of enough âbarsâ for having an âunpopularâ opinion or not âfitting inâ for some reason, you may eventually end up in a âNazi barâ. The thought process behind the adoption of that view, whether conscious or not, could be spite: âFine, if you keep telling me thatâs what I am, then thatâs what I am!â Many people simply want some semblance of community, even if it means being united with others through a shared hatred. The extremism ratchets up when combined with other factorsâŚOne of those factors is that others who arenât that deep into such extremes do not know how to effectively engage with it. It naturally leads to the formation of âecho chambersâ as a result. That is understandable. If someone is constantly blaming you for the problems of society and saying how much that they hate you, why would you try to converse with them? But ironically enough, for some people, the Internet can also act as a kind of âsafe spaceâ to explore it and to heal. Genuine conversations with a diversity of viewpoints, both online and off, can help bring about balanceâŚIf we split things into competing factions and preclude any chance at dialogue (honest dialogue, not âtrollingâ), then we create the conditions ripe for warâŚ
A âculture warâ has its own âweaponsâ and âradicalization pipelinesâ that reflect (and sometimes lead to) recruitment into other types of extreme groups in real life (e.g.: militias, street gangs, etc.). And an overly simplistic âpolitical compassâ will not help one to navigate all of it, especially when people are pigeonholed into mutually exclusive categories like âprogressiveâ/âfar leftâ/âmarxist socialismâ vs. âconservativeâ/âalt-rightâ/âfascist capitalismâ or some other dichotomy. Nuance and humanity have âgone out of the windowâ. Instead of people, all that is left are imaginary âadversariesâ whom one blames for their personal problems.
A bunch of distorted concepts and one-sided stories are mixed into it as well (e.g.: the invention of âraceâ to justify the idea of âslaveryâ while simultaneously erasing the full history of unpleasant events like the Trail of Tears, the Tulsa massacre, the existence and activities of COINTELPRO, and so onâŚ). Things can seem convincing when they look like âscienceâ, so even the âeducatedâ are vulnerable. When personal motivations are factored into oneâs view of historical events, then things start to look a lot more complex and messy than a simple âblack-and-whiteâ narrative of âgoodâ versus âevilâ.
âŚOf course, dehumanizing and abusing others cannot be justified by any belief system whatsoever, but all of these sorts of things (e.g.: historical and cultural contexts) are not necessarily left behind when interacting online. And further, being âterminally onlineâ is not always a healthy way of obtaining socialization. However, that is the function that it serves for many people, particularly the youth of the past 3-4 generations. All over the world, society itself is so fragmented and sick that most people are missing the useful ancestral wisdom, healthy rites of passage, and peaceful support networks that are important for anyone to become a well-adjusted adult.
Example #2: Many families are broken, and fatherless or motherless. When young men donât have things like a potentially constructive Mythopoetic Menâs Movement to help offset that, you end up with potentially destructive Pick-Up Artist (PUA) lairs filled with misogyny and toxic masculinity (e.g.: âmachismoâ, not in the sense of being self-reliant, but overbearingly arrogant and aggressive). Again, it can reach extremes to the point where it might lead people into pointing their frustrations outward, committing acts of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or gender-motivated violence in a misguided attempt to escape the âsocial stigmaâ of âinceldomâ, or to try to bring to light something that they feel is being ignored by leveraging a media that emphasizes violence. In some instances, those frustrations might be turned inward towards trying to change oneself entirely or committing suicide without the addition of murder. It connects to larger social issues about human rights which can impact fatherhood. That is how some families become broken to begin with and the destructive cycle repeats across generationsâŚBut all of that complexity is overlaid on top of what are very basic human fears that everyone of any sex or gender suffers from sometimes: lack of intimacy, loneliness, isolation, and not wanting to die alone. They are also problems that can appear no matter what type of family structure that we are born into.
When it comes to fundamental human needs, everyone is more alike than not. The labels (and the assumptions that underlie them) often mask or distort what is actually happening. Just because another person looks at something differently does not automatically mean that they believe the opposite and are antagonistic towards us. For example, all of this stands in perfect complement to the completely valid issues brought up by the Feminist Movement. To continue the above example: Racist and sexist stereotypes are pushed by search algorithms and are a reflection of a massive amount of adult content that leans heavily into the same stereotypes. In turn, that sort of dehumanization/objectification is often used to justify acts of violence). There is a history behind structures that are founded on inequality and common characteristics throughout the societies that have them.
How can we start to heal from all of the trauma and violence that keeps us from even approaching this nexus of subjects though? Again, itâs tough. But I think that these types of âdifficult conversationsâ are worth having if we want the world to become a place where everyone truly is acknowledged and loved for the constructive qualities that they possess as individuals. And eventually, a society where everyone is integrated together in genuine harmony. We can only do that if we are willing to patiently listen to one another and share our experiences. As empathy increases, so does inclusion and understanding.
âFor now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.â - 1 Corinthians 13:12
TL;DR: To be clear, I am not suggesting that this community become a ârecovering Nazi incel support groupâ or anything, and I think that it is fair to not want to engage with anyone who is actively hostile towards you. It may even be necessary in order to stay safe. Likewise, no matter how much we might care, we cannot change the destructive behaviors of people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. However, I also think that expressing just a little bit of patience and compassion can help keep many people from going down that path to begin with. We sometimes take for granted how much kindness can change a person and that all people deserve dignity, even when they are unwilling to give it in return.
Pretty much all prejudices (whether we are talking about racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, or something else), are the same logical fallacy: assuming that the entirety of a person or group can be reduced to a specific, usually superficial, characteristic. This meaning is contained within the word âprejudiceâ itself, to âpre-judgeâ someone without getting to know them first.
The problem is compounded when people assume the intentions of others and use labels as an excuse to treat them as lesser. Those destructive interactions might then degrade into a cycle of constant back-and-forth, escalating from arguments, to fights and murders, to riots and wars as they grow in scale and intensity. They can also persist through time as people hold grudges and pass on their prejudices to their children. Let us transform those cycles by inheriting the most constructive qualities of our ancestors and working together within the present moment to make life wonderful for everyone, none excluded. That is a real, enduring Love.
âŚIt actually warms my heart that people here are focused on building bridges.