Has the internet made political discourse more aggressive?

That's interesting. I am sure you are right about anonymity being an important feature. But isn't a lot of aggressive political date often not anonymous - the way some politicians and journalists and others talk on Twitter can be pretty rough. And newspapers are also blunt and divisive in their reporting - is it possible that what started out spurred on by anonymity has now spread beyond the internet?

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.

What about making statements to get a reaction? ...

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.

tbh i thought debate was always about wearing the other person down. poking holes in what they're saying until there are so many holes the opinion can't be supported. never did i think debates were about changing opinions or proving oneself right tho. to change an opinion, the person must think they came to their own conclusion and it had nothing to do with you.

I think that's a really good insight - the platforms of social media have built in incentives to post in the form of showing you how much attention you're getting. It becomes a kind of game - perhaps a kind of solitaire - people play. It's as if online political talk isn't really political talk - it's more a kind of marketing of 'the self'.

What made you think debate was like that? I guess it matters what the debate is - the format, the topic and so on. But also, remember that debates often have audiences - when two candidates stage an argumenet they aren't trying to convince each other but the audience.

Can you say a bit more about what you are thinking when you say "to change an opinion, the person must think they came to their own conclusion and it had nothing to do with you" - can't people present others with information that changes minds?

Look at antifa and their thugs that are commonly just seen as normal protesters

It's definitely marketing of the self, or provides people with the opportunity to promote a part of themselves that they want to make visable. It arguably feeds narcissistic behaviours as the chemical hit you're getting from the "likes", "reactions" or comments (in support or not) feeds into the need for continued admiration or attention.

If you stood up in a room and made the same statements it's arguable whether people's responses, either verbally or through body-language would give you the same feeling. If this doesn't feel good why do it. It feels much "safer" to do it behind a screen and get an instant reaction from people you don't know.

re your first question, probably my dad. lol i was raised in an argumentative family. we didn't have small talk; we only talked politics and religion. whoever gave up first lost the debate, but no one's opinion was changed in the end, it was just exhausted, or you became exhausted arguing.

i think our emotions and egos get in the way of rational debate and our willingness to change sides - that's why i said a person needs to believe they come to their own conclusions. people don't like being told what to think. i'm guilty too. if you want me to do something, i'll probably do the opposite.

the best persuaders tho are speakers who can find a ration of truth that you both agree on, and build from there. but there must be that one ration otherwise it's a losing battle imho. (what rhetoric am i using, btw, are you analysing me? )

I think the internet has made political debate more manipulative, where you can paraphrase and misrepresent someone in a 5 second gif. You can also easily recruit friends to jump on an opinion you disagree with, for example a shop does something you don't like then you get a bunch of people to rate it one star purely on hearsay.

I voted no because it's online, not face to face. You're not going to come to blows in anywhere near the same way that an initially peaceful but passionate protest might do if it encounters a similarly intentioned but oppositely charged counter-protest. The internet has made political debates more frequent - previously you'd have to find someone down the pub to argue with but now you can look for people who want to discuss without needing to leave your bed. Also, any aggression online is recorded, whereas someone shouting at you in the street isn't going to be documented in anywhere near as much detail.

In summary, I think the internet has resulted in more political discourse (and this will include aggression), and records it better for all to see (and to bring up again and again), but I think it's far less aggressive as a whole than a face to face disagreement can become.

Thanks for these interesting thoughts - I've a question. Are the offline and online so disconnected? Is it possible that as people get used to ways of arguing online that this shapes how they argue offline? I guess another way of asking that is, is it coincidence that the take-off of 'web 2.0' just precedes an intense polarisation of politics all over the world, a polarisation that hasn't been so intense since a few years after the establishment of mass radio broadcasting?

The internet has allowed the peasants to see how the world is really run which has put them in direct conflict with the establishment and their minions (libtards/remainers etc.)

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.