This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Should I complain to manager?
- An audiobook of one of my poems
- LNAT essay review
- UK Police
- Virgin Shaming, and You
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- If a guy turns around to get a better look at you?
- PPE
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- poor lecturers / course change
- Paris Anthology- How do i actiually do more linguistic analysis here? ( A-level Engli
- How do i tell him to stop?
- Kings or UCL
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- AQA English Language NEA Topic
- assumed racism makes your racist
- Drama School Audition - Monologue suggestions
- Can school advisor comment/undermine my PS?
- Marking AQA a-level Psychology Essay: Evaluate and outline the social learning theory
- History course work- To what extent Germany was responsible for the outbreak of ww1
Has the internet made political discourse more aggressive?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
Would you hate them for those political views offline?
If they hold extremist political views with the likes of the BNP then yes, most certainly. I have many friends who have a mix of left and right wing ideas but we still respect each-other. Is the extremes you have to watch out for
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
I'm not sure... I can think of several historical examples pre-internet where the political rhetoric has been very aggressive.
It feels like the echo-chamber has brought division and tribalism closer to home in a different way, but I'm not sure if this a new phenomenon or a reflection of the current economic situation or ...... ? It feels more toxic, but I'm not sure if it actually is - although the scale has changed and maybe that's what's different.
It feels like the echo-chamber has brought division and tribalism closer to home in a different way, but I'm not sure if this a new phenomenon or a reflection of the current economic situation or ...... ? It feels more toxic, but I'm not sure if it actually is - although the scale has changed and maybe that's what's different.
What are the examples you have in mind? Maybe if we think about them we can see what (if anything) is different - it might be scale, as you suggest, but there might be other things in play.
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
What are the examples you have in mind? Maybe if we think about them we can see what (if anything) is different - it might be scale, as you suggest, but there might be other things in play.
Well, I guess 1930s Europe is one obvious example...
By scale I mean that online communication has brought things much more into the micro level compared to the past, where it was more broadcast/consumption... Or has it? I'm not sure
(edited 5 years ago)
It gave me unlimited access to communist idealogy is what it did to me.
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
Well, I guess 1930s Europe is one obvious example...
By scale I mean that online communication has brought things much more into the micro level compared to the past, where it was more broadcast/consumption... Or has it? I'm not sure
By scale I mean that online communication has brought things much more into the micro level compared to the past, where it was more broadcast/consumption... Or has it? I'm not sure
The internet is many to many with a lot less gatekeepers. Old media is one to many with lots of barriers and "acceptability".
Whether this is good, bad or neutral is
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
I’m interested in political rhetoric – the arguments people make when they try to justify or prove their political claims, and also the style with which they communicate it. Everybody uses rhetoric, whenever they try to justify something to someone who doesn’t already agree. Today a lot of political rhetoric happens online. My question is “Has the internet made political discourse more aggressive?”
One answer would be a definitive ‘Yes’ – that online political communication is ‘toxic’, predominantly and unavoidably hateful, all about point-scoring rather than trying to win anyone over, and that that is the inevitable outcome when people can communicate anonymously, without having to know anything about the topic, using platforms designed to generate traffic rather than good debate. Do you agree?
My name is Alan Finlayson and I am Professor of Political and Social Theory at the University of East Anglia. I research the history, theory and practice of political rhetoric. At the moment I am looking at how social media and other online platforms are changing who gets to speak to millions about their politics, the rhetoric they use and how it is changing the ways people think about (and do) politics.
One answer would be a definitive ‘Yes’ – that online political communication is ‘toxic’, predominantly and unavoidably hateful, all about point-scoring rather than trying to win anyone over, and that that is the inevitable outcome when people can communicate anonymously, without having to know anything about the topic, using platforms designed to generate traffic rather than good debate. Do you agree?
My name is Alan Finlayson and I am Professor of Political and Social Theory at the University of East Anglia. I research the history, theory and practice of political rhetoric. At the moment I am looking at how social media and other online platforms are changing who gets to speak to millions about their politics, the rhetoric they use and how it is changing the ways people think about (and do) politics.
Thats a very interesting question Professor but is it not a bit leading? You've not offered a justification and an example for a defintive 'no'...and with all due respect, what is this new fascination that universities have with the word 'aggressive'? Overnight, students are becoming bombarded with this very superficial term. Is aggression bad? If I am aggressive in the pursuit of justice, as I perceive it, wheather online or offline, is that faulty? Is it wrong if I become agressive in defence of myself against a physcial or verbal assault? Why are you focusing on the symptom, the agression, and not the cause of it? Is your approach to political discourse not flawed?
Worth noting it's not just politics, but lots of different areas where mass participation through social media has led to greater visibility of 'tribalism' and hostility. I'm a great F1 fan, and you only have to click on any relevant Facebook post from the official F1 account to see what 'discussion' has devolved into. The constant Hamilton vs Vettel, Ferrari vs anyone, anyone vs Verstappen, etc, is ridiculous. Petty insults, extreme defensiveness, trying to wind each other up...
At races all the fans sit together and get on just fine, and the discussion on specialist F1 sites and forums is usually cordial and intelligent. Only social media has turned into a kids' playground.
At races all the fans sit together and get on just fine, and the discussion on specialist F1 sites and forums is usually cordial and intelligent. Only social media has turned into a kids' playground.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The internet is many to many with a lot less gatekeepers.
This is what I was trying to get at
I guess I'm not sure whether it has made discourse more aggressive, or just made more of it if you see what I mean.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
Well, I guess 1930s Europe is one obvious example...
By scale I mean that online communication has brought things much more into the micro level compared to the past, where it was more broadcast/consumption... Or has it? I'm not sure
By scale I mean that online communication has brought things much more into the micro level compared to the past, where it was more broadcast/consumption... Or has it? I'm not sure
That certainly is an example. And I think it's a interesting one to reflect on in relation to your other point - about the micro-level. The rhetoric of totalitarian movements in the thirties is often part of massive specatcles - rallies, marches and so on. But in a lot of respects these events are for the participants - making them feel part of something big and powerful, reinforcing their attachment to it. Maybe one of the things that is new about online political communication is that individuals can direct their communication at another individual - and that it happens in people's 'private' space.
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
I’m interested in political rhetoric – the arguments people make when they try to justify or prove their political claims, and also the style with which they communicate it. Everybody uses rhetoric, whenever they try to justify something to someone who doesn’t already agree. Today a lot of political rhetoric happens online. My question is “Has the internet made political discourse more aggressive?”
One answer would be a definitive ‘Yes’ – that online political communication is ‘toxic’, predominantly and unavoidably hateful, all about point-scoring rather than trying to win anyone over, and that that is the inevitable outcome when people can communicate anonymously, without having to know anything about the topic, using platforms designed to generate traffic rather than good debate. Do you agree?
My name is Alan Finlayson and I am Professor of Political and Social Theory at the University of East Anglia. I research the history, theory and practice of political rhetoric. At the moment I am looking at how social media and other online platforms are changing who gets to speak to millions about their politics, the rhetoric they use and how it is changing the ways people think about (and do) politics.
One answer would be a definitive ‘Yes’ – that online political communication is ‘toxic’, predominantly and unavoidably hateful, all about point-scoring rather than trying to win anyone over, and that that is the inevitable outcome when people can communicate anonymously, without having to know anything about the topic, using platforms designed to generate traffic rather than good debate. Do you agree?
My name is Alan Finlayson and I am Professor of Political and Social Theory at the University of East Anglia. I research the history, theory and practice of political rhetoric. At the moment I am looking at how social media and other online platforms are changing who gets to speak to millions about their politics, the rhetoric they use and how it is changing the ways people think about (and do) politics.
This, combined with a phenomenon called "toxic disinhibition" (or GIFT; Greater Internet F***wad Theory), has resulted in people expressing views in much more unmoderated and undiplomatic ways, fostering extreme views and making biases more polar.
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
That certainly is an example. And I think it's a interesting one to reflect on in relation to your other point - about the micro-level. The rhetoric of totalitarian movements in the thirties is often part of massive specatcles - rallies, marches and so on. But in a lot of respects these events are for the participants - making them feel part of something big and powerful, reinforcing their attachment to it. Maybe one of the things that is new about online political communication is that individuals can direct their communication at another individual - and that it happens in people's 'private' space.
Yes.
But... don't online communities also give people the feeling of being part of something bigger?
Spectacle in a different way?Original post by Pinkisk
Thats a very interesting question Professor but is it not a bit leading? You've not offered a justification and an example for a defintive 'no'...and with all due respect, what is this new fascination that universities have with the word 'aggressive'? Overnight, students are becoming bombarded with this very superficial term. Is aggression bad? If I am aggressive in the pursuit of justice, as I perceive it, wheather online or offline, is that faulty? Is it wrong if I become agressive in defence of myself against a physcial or verbal assault? Why are you focusing on the symptom, the agression, and not the cause of it? Is your approach to political discourse not flawed?
I think that this is an extremely interesting response - in part because it is an example of a distinct way people communicate online. The header to the thread asks a general question - it then outlines one well-known and standard answer and asks 'Do you agree?'. It's an invitation to a discussion - it's not me laying down the law and daring people to disagree. If we were in face-to-face conversation this would be obvious. But online people very often respond in a wounded and threatened way - as if something said there is an unwarranted, an unauthorised, intrusion. That's because, in a way, it is. If we are in a seminar, for example, we know that we were in a situation where we were supposed to try on and test out ideas and we have a sense of the sort of conduct everyone expects. But we receive online communications in the midst of doing something else - on the train, scrolling through all kinds of social media feeds, half-watching a video and so on. And that means that people often respond as if startled - misconstruing the context and reacting to a term considered 'offensive' (in this case the word 'aggressive'). This is an instance of 'context collapse' - the context which gives communication stable meaning is lost online and so communication often misfires.
Your list of rhetorical questions are also interesting - both as a style often found online and as concrete questions. A lot of online political debate is polemical - it's about attacking something, knocking it off balance. Rhetorical questions, especialy in a list, are a good way of doing that - they aren't attempts to solicit answers but blows, the volume of which is intended to show that who or whatever is receiving them cannot answer, and has no standing. There is a problem, however, if this is all that there is to rhetoric - in a rhetorical culture where all arguments are only ever undermined, people stop finding any argument plausible and cynicism becomes the dominant attitude.
There is also a key issue here - having accepted that online political discourse is aggressive you go on to question whether or not it is a problem. I think that's the right question. Political discussion - if it is real and not just a pretend game - has real stakes. It's about decisions which will affect people's livelihood, security and so on. Of course people are angry, paasionate and so on. So, on the one hand people have to think - if they want to win - about the effectiveness of their anger? It can be a way of getting people to pay attention to your cause - but it can also limit the number of people who want to join with you in promoting it. On the other hand people have to accept that if they get involved in debate about a controversial or difficut issue then there may be some sparks.
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
This is what I was trying to get at
I guess I'm not sure whether it has made discourse more aggressive, or just made more of it if you see what I mean.
I guess I'm not sure whether it has made discourse more aggressive, or just made more of it if you see what I mean.
Well, it's not just fewer gatekeepers - it's also no 'presiding officers'. If you look at the House of Commons, debate can get pretty rowdy and noisy. That's why they have a Speaker who makes sure people take turns, don't drown out speakers and abide by some basic rules of decorum. That's needed because Commons debate has to be managed - so that decisions can be taken. That's rather different from endless online discusion.
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)Yes.
But... don't online communities also give people the feeling of being part of something bigger? Spectacle in a different way?
That's true - fair point. But isn't there something very different about being at a keyboard, in your own home perhaps, alone, and being in a crowd, physically present?
But... don't online communities also give people the feeling of being part of something bigger?
Spectacle in a different way?That's true - fair point. But isn't there something very different about being at a keyboard, in your own home perhaps, alone, and being in a crowd, physically present?
Original post by Neilos
Worth noting it's not just politics, but lots of different areas where mass participation through social media has led to greater visibility of 'tribalism' and hostility. I'm a great F1 fan, and you only have to click on any relevant Facebook post from the official F1 account to see what 'discussion' has devolved into. The constant Hamilton vs Vettel, Ferrari vs anyone, anyone vs Verstappen, etc, is ridiculous. Petty insults, extreme defensiveness, trying to wind each other up...
At races all the fans sit together and get on just fine, and the discussion on specialist F1 sites and forums is usually cordial and intelligent. Only social media has turned into a kids' playground.
At races all the fans sit together and get on just fine, and the discussion on specialist F1 sites and forums is usually cordial and intelligent. Only social media has turned into a kids' playground.
Good point - suggests that the medium - the platform - is part of what's determining the behaviour and not the subjects under consideration.
Original post by UEA Guest Lecturer
Well, it's not just fewer gatekeepers - it's also no 'presiding officers'. If you look at the House of Commons, debate can get pretty rowdy and noisy. That's why they have a Speaker who makes sure people take turns, don't drown out speakers and abide by some basic rules of decorum. That's needed because Commons debate has to be managed - so that decisions can be taken. That's rather different from endless online discusion.
This is true, but... what if the person managing the discourse is aggressive? Another example might be historical witch-hunts. Was that a 'managed' discourse...? Was that less aggressive than online communication these...? What were the conversations like between every day people around that topic? Do we know?
I'm just wondering if we're comparing modern online communication to a golden age of 'respectable' discourse that never actually existed, if you see what I mean.
This is a *very* interesting comment. On the one hand it's an exampe of something that's always been a part of political dispute: a heckle. But on the other hand, it seems to me, it's also something that is distinct to online culture for two reasons.
Firstly, online makes it easier to heckle, especially in a context such as this one where there isn't actually a political debate going on. It's a 'drive-by' style that's quite common on Reddit, Twitter and of course is the definitive mode of something like 4chan.
Secondly, however this heckle does have a context - just not the context of this particular thread. It's part of the more general context of TSR and its user community. I'm not part of that community - I am a guest here - so I don't know the context, the background disputes about politics that go on here. So, to me the comment feels completely random. But online communities such as this build up an argot, and a set of references and one way to get recognition on them - likes or karma or retweets - is to speak to that community, and be seen as able to use its terms and references.
A lot of the more ugly arguments that break out online are to do with contexts clashing - things that make perfect sense to people in one online community, get seen or posted at people who aren't part of it and are seen as being rude or nonsensical. The result is the kind of empty flame war that is all over the internet.
Firstly, online makes it easier to heckle, especially in a context such as this one where there isn't actually a political debate going on. It's a 'drive-by' style that's quite common on Reddit, Twitter and of course is the definitive mode of something like 4chan.
Secondly, however this heckle does have a context - just not the context of this particular thread. It's part of the more general context of TSR and its user community. I'm not part of that community - I am a guest here - so I don't know the context, the background disputes about politics that go on here. So, to me the comment feels completely random. But online communities such as this build up an argot, and a set of references and one way to get recognition on them - likes or karma or retweets - is to speak to that community, and be seen as able to use its terms and references.
A lot of the more ugly arguments that break out online are to do with contexts clashing - things that make perfect sense to people in one online community, get seen or posted at people who aren't part of it and are seen as being rude or nonsensical. The result is the kind of empty flame war that is all over the internet.
Anonymity is a hell of a drug.
What about making statements to get a reaction? You see newstories on Facebook and the comments are ordered by 'reaction' via selecting an emoji. The most aggressive or noisy statements tend to get the most attention and it moves in full view of everyone.
Isn't this essentially trolling? The person might not genuinely have this view however, the attention they'll potentially receive becomes motivation for them making this kind of statement which could then incite more hate and more aggression.
Arguably changing from likes to reactions has made Facebook a more argumentative place as well as an echo chamber for certain political views and standpoints.
Isn't this essentially trolling? The person might not genuinely have this view however, the attention they'll potentially receive becomes motivation for them making this kind of statement which could then incite more hate and more aggression.
Arguably changing from likes to reactions has made Facebook a more argumentative place as well as an echo chamber for certain political views and standpoints.
Of course. Social medias are responsible of the growing political tribalism of our society. It seems that on Twitter you can only express your disagreement with insults. The other is the enemy, whatever their argument. Media/politicians/experts lie to us, etc.
Before the internet, people got their news mostly from the radio and TV. They had to listen/watch arguments by people they disagreed with, whilst with Facebook they can completely erase them from their newsfeed. They are therefore only exposed to information consistent with their views, in a massive echo chamber. When they see someone that does not fit in their fantasy world, they thinks he is an enemy scheming some plots against them.
Before the internet, people got their news mostly from the radio and TV. They had to listen/watch arguments by people they disagreed with, whilst with Facebook they can completely erase them from their newsfeed. They are therefore only exposed to information consistent with their views, in a massive echo chamber. When they see someone that does not fit in their fantasy world, they thinks he is an enemy scheming some plots against them.
(edited 5 years ago)
Related discussions
- Should I complain to manager?
- An audiobook of one of my poems
- LNAT essay review
- UK Police
- Virgin Shaming, and You
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- If a guy turns around to get a better look at you?
- PPE
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- poor lecturers / course change
- Paris Anthology- How do i actiually do more linguistic analysis here? ( A-level Engli
- How do i tell him to stop?
- Kings or UCL
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- AQA English Language NEA Topic
- assumed racism makes your racist
- Drama School Audition - Monologue suggestions
- Can school advisor comment/undermine my PS?
- Marking AQA a-level Psychology Essay: Evaluate and outline the social learning theory
- History course work- To what extent Germany was responsible for the outbreak of ww1
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 days ago
What is the teaching quality like at UEA? Specifically philosophyLast reply 1 week ago
Official Uni of East Anglia (UEA) 2024 Applicants Thread :)Last reply 2 months ago
UEA Film and Television production with placement yearLast reply 3 months ago
University east anglia - are they lenient with grade entry reqs?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 days ago
What is the teaching quality like at UEA? Specifically philosophyLast reply 1 week ago
Official Uni of East Anglia (UEA) 2024 Applicants Thread :)Last reply 2 months ago
UEA Film and Television production with placement yearLast reply 3 months ago
University east anglia - are they lenient with grade entry reqs?
