For a while now there has been this strict partisanship online- certain people consider themselves adherents to one of two loose camps, and they consider everyone else as members of them too.

The two main buckets are labelled “right” and the “left” and both of those also come with a bunch of other beliefs that you automatically gain as a bonus when people throw you into them:

-You think the term “Cis” and “tiggerwords” are silly?
Well into the “right” bucket you go! You are now a nazi, you hate transpeople, you're racist, xenophobic, sexist, royalist, Trumploving, MAGA, climate change denier, and many, many other things. Don't fight it you low down disgusting gamergater, I hope you get cancer and die.
(I don't really ^_^)

-You think Muslin woman should have the right to wear their veils?
You're now in the “Left” bucket. You're a feminazi cuck who wants men sterilised and wants to abort everything constantly, you vegan weirdo, atheist, communist, socialist, extremist, terrorist, pansy, snowflake, Antifa, gun hating Libtard!



And so it goes.
Fair enough, these bucket-people are morons.
What disturbs me are all the people who are being actively harmed by this childish carry-on as they get caught up and become thoughtless collateral damage.
I read about the struggles of big-brested techblogger Niaomi Wu recently and how Vice had caused her to go almost broke with their duplicity.
Are there any others who have been damaged like that? And how do we guard against becoming bucket-people ourselves?

I find solace in satire and parody.

Like a great Twitter satire account Titania McGrath. It really skewers the whole “woke” thing.

As for boxes, it's like old joke about there being two kinds of people: those who separate people into two categories and those who don't.

Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken and other great curmudgeons keep me going.

One belly laugh is worth 10,000 syllogisms.

The optimist says we live in the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist fears this is so.

Oz: not sure I get the connection between what seems to be your main gripe (superficially lumping people into “left” and “right” groups) with political activism, and also the connection between either (lumping together and political activism) and the Vice anecdote. What did you mean here?

Great, now I have a new weather-based fear of “terrorist snowflakes.” Just when I was working through that sharknado thing.

Abt_Nihil wrote:
Oz: not sure I get the connection between what seems to be your main gripe (superficially lumping people into “left” and “right” groups) with political activism, and also the connection between either (lumping together and political activism) and the Vice anecdote. What did you mean here?

Genuine political activism is not what I'm addressing.
I'm talking about the people who treat superficial political ideas as a new kind of tribalism. They don't just split up people along tribal lines, but ideas as well.


Naomi is a great example of a person who got caught up in it and became collateral damage.
Vice wanted to interview her because she's a slightly transgressive person, a highly educated woman, a Chinese national, and a tech blogger with a lot of influence.
But they ended up asking her lots of personal questions. As a Chinese national it can be very dangerous for her to have those sorts of details made public (it's very easy to end up in prison…), so she asked to see the article and make changes before they published it. They said that was against their rules and were going to publish it anyway.
As a desperate last ploy to stop it being published she doxed the journalist and showed his address online. Vice reported that to Patreon and they adhering strictly to their rules banned her account and confiscated her money. They lost thousands of subscribers that she'd built up over time and thousands in earnings.

There's more to it (other platforms she moves to are being defunded because of idiotic activism that has nothing to do with her), but basically she was caught up in other people's superficial political activism: Vice because they'd hamfistedly thought to promote someone they put in the “left” bucket, without actually understanding the real issues facing her, and Patreon with its strict rules that were put in place to combat one of the chief tactics of the tribalism bucket people.
-All this done to someone who is a total outsider to all of that superficial tribalist internet cultre.

Oz - thanks for explaining! I think I have a better idea now… though I'm still not entirely sure (a) what you mean (positively) by political activism here and (b) what anti-doxxing rules have to do with that.

Political ideas have always been extremely divisive. (After all, any advice on how to do small-talk will always include a bit saying you shouldn't talk about politics or religion.) But you think there's a new “tribalistic” dimension to it?

Personally, I think it's mostly a matter of escalation of existing divides, populism and less inhibition on the net, a/k/a unbridled rage. Probably just an expansion of rage gamer syndrome.

Bingo. Escalation due to keyboard warriors and ease of access to political info, regardless of its validity.

The recent anti abortion laws and posts about that on both sides have often been disgusting.
That's not so much about individual cases though. The me too thing and various stories that came out around that time were often just as bad and I don't think anyone has the right attitude or answers. The basic ideas behind these things are fine (most of the time) but how things are handled by people who aren't held accountable is often disturbing.

However it's odd how far it goes in holding accountable others. Some guy does a video slowed to make Nancy Pelosi appear drunk.

Something that was routinely done on late night talk shows about Trump.

A news outlet puts out the web research on
this guy who is just another schlub who happens to support Trump and an African American and effectively ruins a very small and undistinguished lifestyle.

There is constant hyperbole and misunderstanding and ignorance of various groups. An orthodox jew conservative is in no way connected to the alt right. The alt right is actually not conservative hence the “alt” and they're anti-Semitic and actually issue death threats against prominent Jews as they spew the same old Protocols of the Elders of Zion garbage.

Just like representative Ilian Omar and her defenders who are very American watered down pseudo socialists. But the right puts out the word “socialist” as if it's the KGB and the Reds scare of the 1920s or 1950s.

And remember only the right wing is anti-Semitic.

And I just start laughing.

Can't help myself. It's so ridiculous. I voted for Trump because he's entertaining because he has no tact. But this is getting past ridiculous and into surreal.

He is so awful, he lost the House in the midterms and hopefully the American voters will NOT reelect him. Can Americans stop reelecting awful presidents?

Sure electing an idiot is excusable, we didn't know what he'd really do in office.

But re-election?

And remember only the right wing is anti-Semitic.

That made me chuckle, especially as over here it's the left wing party that is constantly being branded antisemitic.

The current Youtube purges in the wake of the ongoing Carlos Maza - Steven Crowder feud are a great example of this. You have two people on either side flinging bombs at each other and it's all the little people caught in the crossfire who suffer. That's usually how it goes. Extremism by its very nature tends to be sociopathic and views people not as individuals but as raw material to be shaped to a purpose or excised when in the way. In case of the Maza-Crowder thing, there appear to be corporate interests involved as well, so that's even more of a whammy. (***youtube link is to a Tim Pool video on the topic***)

Sadly, there's not much that can be done with the internet as it currently is. I'd say try to find an ecosystem where there are no ‘bucket people,’ but no such place exists, and if you built it and it thrived, then it would soon be despoiled. You won't get the bucket people to stop doing what they do, and it's unlikely that the folks in the middle will band together against them because, by definition, they don't tend to band together too readily. One possible solution I can see is to disarm the bucket people, and one way to do that is by limiting the power that major platforms have to deplatform people. That's not entirely a pie-in-the-sky proposition, given that Youtube and various social media sites have been abusing their regulatory status as platform providers for quite some time. I'm not holding my breath, though.

A good example is Viggo Mortenson, during a q and a about the green book he used the word nigger, not in a racist context but discussing how language of racism and prejudice has changed and that despite that people don't use the word so much doesn't change what people carry inside. There was a backlash following someone tweeting about it without giving context and he ended up issuing an apology for using “that word” to me that sums up the stupidity of the whole situation. The word isn't inherently bad, it's just a word after all and censoring the use of it doesn't change a thing. Context is king.

Oh my god Tyrone used the C word, he's racist.

Cunt?

No, cracker.

What does dried bread type products have to do with racism?

It's a racial slur against white people.

And Tyrone is a parrot and he's hungry you moron.

Genejoke: Well, I think the N-word is bad with some exceptions. To my knowledge, it isn't ambiguous the way “cracker” is. Two main exceptions being when the word isn't used but referenced (as in scholarly contexts or in the Mortensen-case) and gangsta rap. Fun anecdote: My wife recently took part in a seminar which discussed a historical (academic) text where that N-word was used, so of course in discussing parts of the text she mentioned its use of the N-word… and was immediately scolded for it. If even academics can't distinguish between use and mention of a word, we're truly screwed.

And, in addition to what El Cid wrote: Much of social media - and hence much of today's internet - is built on an economy of outrage. So it's not just a matter of free speech (i.e. of deregulation), but of getting a grip on that economy (i.e. of regulation). So it's a matter of finding that sweet spot between a strangulation of free speech and turning the internet into the fifth circle of hell (to quote Sayers: “the active hatreds rend and snarl at one another; at the bottom, the sullen hatreds lie gurgling, unable even to express themselves for the rage that chokes them”).

Indeed, the N word is pretty much only a derogatory term, but ultimately words only have the power people give them. Right now it's so taboo it's probably the most powerful word in the world. Your anecdote is pretty scary truth be told. I mean what the actual fuck? You'd hope academics would know better and many probably do, but they are so scared of causing offence they censor people anyway. It's tragic. Can you imagine the difference it would make if when a celebrity says something that may be prejudice in some way the response was more like, “not cool, I thought you were better than that!” Rather than “OMG! So and so is a prejudiced mother darker and should be sacked never to work again because he is a stain upon humanity!!!!” That would be a nicer world.

No, the “N” word is used as a form of address by the black community, so context is important. If you're a white person (or any other ethnicity), and use it it's tricky, but if you're amongst African friends and the use my you and them in that friendship context is ok then it's ok :)
But yeah, using it outside of that is where you run into trouble.

Abt_Nihil wrote:
Oz - thanks for explaining! I think I have a better idea now… though I'm still not entirely sure (a) what you mean (positively) by political activism here and (b) what anti-doxxing rules have to do with that.

There's an obvious difference between activism and tribalism.

It's not a difference of escalating and extremism. Political activism is something that Tantz Aerine does: It's sincere and engaged.
A person who simply takes sides all the time, calls names, and is always looking to see who else is on which side and put every notion and idea into sides as well is being tribal. They may ALSO be a political activist but their tribalisitic behaviour is not part of that.
It's the same as being an Apple or Android person, supporting a particular football team madly, being a crazy patriot etc, examples are legion.

————-

The antidoxxing rules in my example with Naomi Wu: The rules were put in place as a direct result of the behaviour of the tribalistic people mentioned (alt-righters, anti-feminists, gamer-gaters, and their compatriots on the other side) using tactics against each other. It's due to them that rule was in place. Niaomi not being a part of that culture didn't understand that and fell afoul of it.
It was another example of an outsider to the right/left tribal western internet culture becoming caught in the middle of things.

El Cid wrote: You have two people on either side flinging bombs at each other and it's all the little people caught in the crossfire who suffer.

Exactly!

I'd say try to find an ecosystem where there are no ‘bucket people,’ but no such place exists, and if you built it and it thrived, then it would soon be despoiled.

There's two things I'd say to that:
1. We have to try and avoid becoming like that ourselves, because we are ALL prone to this. No one is immune. We have to learn to recognise when we're just being stupidly tribalistic about an issue.
2. We have to call out others for that behaviour too. When they're not being political but tribal.

But certain groups are NOT allowed to be tribal in any way, shape or form or else they're immediately labeled as “hateful, patriarchal, homophobic, racists” who strangle babies and kick old ladies.

And in US English the “N” word and “C” word are anathema and never to be used in any context under pain ostracism and shame.

You're lucky in Australia that you're still allowed to utter those syllables as a straight white male.

But of course that hasn't stopped me from using them in my comics. I'm depicting a character who does use them. Context does matter. If you're discussing the language of the Jim Crow south there are words that are appropriate to the milieu and evil today.

But then my father was from the Jim Crow South where the “N” word was just how you referred to some people. My grandmother was a racist too. This was the age of Archie Bunker. Hate speech was just so many words that some people used.

bravo1102 wrote:
But certain groups are NOT allowed to be tribal in any way, shape or form or else they're immediately labeled as “hateful, patriarchal, homophobic, racists” who strangle babies and kick old ladies.

Ummm, what you're really describing there are people on the OTHER side being tribal by using those terms to describe people they don't like.
Being a tribal leftist or rightwinger are just as bad.

And in US English the “N” word and “C” word are anathema and never to be used in any context under pain ostracism and shame.

Not really, it's contextual. Black people in social situations use the “N” word :)
In certain subcultures and situations using the C word is ok, even in the US. Just don't use it as an insult. :)

Like you say, it's contextual

Ummm, what you're really describing there are people on the OTHER side being tribal by using those terms to describe people they don't like.
Being a tribal leftist or rightwinger are just as bad.

You put it better than I did. Thanks.

Not really, it's contextual. Black people in social situations use the “N” word :)
In certain subcultures and situations using the C word is ok, even in the US. Just don't use it as an insult. :)

Like you say, it's contextual

Come to where I work and throw it around to your friends and you'll find out just how quickly you'll alienate everyone.

Folks I work with have self-respect and say it's too ghetto to call friends “n”.
Rap is one thing, but out and about is another. That's a paraphrase of what I was told.

You see if a white uses the “n” word it's a flashback to slavery not a term of endearment. Even Hispanics using it is problematic because of the pecking order of skin tone in Hispanic countries. That's what I live every day.

Yeah it's definitely different in other countries even where the cultures are similar.

ozoneocean wrote:
The antidoxxing rules in my example with Naomi Wu: The rules were put in place as a direct result of the behaviour of the tribalistic people mentioned (alt-righters, anti-feminists, gamer-gaters, and their compatriots on the other side) using tactics against each other. It's due to them that rule was in place. Niaomi not being a part of that culture didn't understand that and fell afoul of it.
It was another example of an outsider to the right/left tribal western internet culture becoming caught in the middle of things.

I see it more as a problem of VICE not being governed by the same rules as Wu. They “doxxed” her first, she doxxed in retaliation, but, as far as I'm aware, it was only Wu who was punished. So, to me, the problem doesn't seem to be that she's caught up in tribalism, but in an unjust system of sanctions. In this case, why should the original reason for introducing anti-doxxing rules on Patreon matter?

Also:

ozoneocean wrote:
The rules were put in place as a direct result of the behaviour of the tribalistic people mentioned (alt-righters, anti-feminists, gamer-gaters, and their compatriots on the other side) using tactics against each other.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated, since the tactics of extremists are not primarily being used against extremists on the opposite side, but against the moderate. (The primary targets of alt-righters, anti-feminists, gamer-gaters are sensible people.) Correspondingly, the anti-doxxing rules were not put into place because of a war between opposing extremists (rather, that's the narrative of the extremists - they see anyone opposing as an opposing extremist - just this morning, I had to read that those agreeing with YouTube's measures against Steven Crowder are - obviously! - “Social Marxists”), but because of extremists targeting moderates. And my thinking that this is so is really just a consequence of agreeing with this:

ozoneocean wrote:

El Cid wrote: You have two people on either side flinging bombs at each other and it's all the little people caught in the crossfire who suffer.

Exactly!

And everyone is going with the since discredited “microaggressions ” model and being #triggered rather than just amused.

Seemingly to avoid microaggressions every reaction is suddenly taken to the extreme. Suddenly it's labeling and name calling.

There's either a label you wrap around yourself in pride(no pun intended during pride month) or fling at another with extreme prejudice!!

It's the old “us” and “not us”. If you're not “us” you're worse than “them” you're immediately the EVIL OTHER. No shades immediately a Nazi or a communist, fascist or SJW. No in between.

@Abt, there was a bit more to it than that, she talks about it a bit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD1HusIXOPc

Naomi is indeed an example of a victim of internet political tribalism:
-The only reason Vice interviewed her was because she fit the profile of the sorts of people they like to hold up as an exemplar for their agenda:
A sexy, transgressive, educated, ethnic, foreign woman, who has some issues with sexist, rightwing trolls.

She plays perfectly to their house narrative. ^_^

But in writing their article their article they didn't seem to care that it could harm her.

And she WAS harmed, by mechanisms setup because of the excesses of tribalistic behaviour (The anti-doxing rules on Patreon)
And then she was further harmed by political tribalism when other bloggers and the New York Times wrote smear articles about her claiming she was a rightwinger and people tried to actively get her defunded and deplatformed.



What happened to her is a perfect example of the rabid excesses of this childish behaviour that masquerades as political activism and exists on both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes, there are toxic rightwingers who do and say nasty, stupid, evil things, but us on the left are just as prone to over-reactions and evil through stupidity. We have to admit that and guard against it.

Even for myself: I'm committed to the left, and know how easy it is for me to get swept away and caught up in the campaigns against such and such individual and cause. Like the case of that stupid smirking boy in the MAGA hat for example. The actual facts of the situation were VERY different from what the press reported and what people got carried away with fighting for.
None of us are immune to this idiocy.

*The original video created the impression that the MAGA hat boy had gotten in the face of the old native American man and he was disrespecting him, smirking and tempting to provoke him while he calmly sang.
People found out who the boy was and started a hate campaign against him and his parents, tried to get him expelled etc.
-It turned out that the real story was that the kids were standing in their own little right wing group in their stupid hats but away from people and not interfering with them. The old man was part of a group of agitators who deliberately go around trying to provoke violence, which they had been filmed doing. He had come into the group where the boy was and sung in his face while the boy stood there and took it. The person who filmed it cut out everything excpt that short snippet and kept the view on a tight frame so you missed all the real context… and so another tribalist campaign was born.

None of us are immune to this idiocy

Possibly the smartest thing you've ever said, and it's not like you're stupid or even close to it even if I don't always agree with you.

There's too many good posts to tack on to just one, but absolutely. This a symptom of meme and twitter culture. There's not really room for developed nuance in a single sentence or 140 characters. It's ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ with no in-betweens. So many people also across so many social media platforms view themselves not as people interacting with other people, but as Content Creators and followers…and with as much it gets a bit like the Dr. Seuss “To Think I Saw It On Mulberry Street”…when a “Creator” has no compelling content to share, every bit of minutia has to be made out to be something groundbreaking to keep people coming back…it's why if you watch the cable news channels, they have BREAKING NEWS all day long…when they're really just hyping up something totally mundane, wildly speculating…there must be some constant conflict or crisis for people to keep coming back…therefore the “other” side is always an evil that needs 24/7 watching.

Hi, I'm new

Hi Bumpy.

Hmm, I have a theory about Twitter: Maybe from the beginning, it was designed to be a competitive multiplayer deathmatch… and nobody using it today realizes that?

Hi Cid, that's a theory worth testing!

El Cid wrote:
Hi Bumpy.

Hmm, I have a theory about Twitter: Maybe from the beginning, it was designed to be a competitive multiplayer deathmatch… and nobody using it today realizes that?

Wow man, that comic is wild…great modeling

Thanks! Though I can't claim much credit for the models themselves, for the most part. I'm more of a writer/director!