Public Discourse and the Road to Repair

In our study of public discourse, it’s difficult not to feel overwhelmed.  The muddling of facts, polarized political sides, and adverse effects of technology are enough to give you a headache and make a manageable solution feel out of reach.  Yet James Hoggan reminds us in I’m Right and You’re an Idiot that “it is not a wise strategy to define a situation as inevitable or out of control” and in doing so you will simply create a “message that leads to paralysis.” 

   
In this case Hoggan was referring to the dangers of framing undeniable environmental problems through the lens of an impending apocalypse, which frightens citizens into an ignorance-is-bliss state of mind that turns off the switch to our planet’s environmental collapse.  This paralysis effect could be similarly applied to the deteriorating state of public discourse, where it is just as temping to ignore the massive problem and try to live your own life as best you can. 

But how do we avoid doing nothing to fix the state of public discourse without falling into the same patterns and habits that got us here in the first place?  I could recycle my trash and tell myself that I’m making an impact, while still driving my car, eating farmed meet, and wasting water.  Similarly, I could read a text on the importance of political collaboration, share my analysis with like-minded peers, and walk away with the consolation of “Hey, at least we’re talking about it.”

But at what point is taking about it enough to give people what Hoggan describes as a “will to find a way out of the dilemma?”  I think it all comes back to who you are talking to and how you approach talking to them.  I have no trouble voicing my opinions and ideas within echo chambers where I feel comfortable, but when was the last time I actively sought out individuals with a opposing standpoints to try to understand their viewpoint and listen with empathy? 

In the wealth of channels and individuals seeking to vitalize public discourse through their own platforms, certain approaches stand out from others in their accommodation to empathetic and collaborative discourse.  There is the widely popular TED organization, which broadcasts its “Ideas worth spreading” to over thirteen billion YouTube subscribers.  The array of poised and diverse individuals with generative ideas and perspectives is a refreshing change from the shouting matches we see in debates and on news broadcasts, but perhaps TED is tiptoeing around authentic public discourse in their politically slanted selection of presenters and speaker-to-audience approach.

Then we have individuals like Steven Crowder, who uses a feigned attempt at “real” public discourse to mask what is clearly an intention to spark polarizing arguments in his Change My Mind YouTube series.  In the videos Crowder sits down with college students to tackle hot button topics, yet his tongue in cheek tagline “Change My Mind” clearly implies he has no intention of doing so.  The videos consistently feature flustered or angry students, a smug Crowder, and a lack of empathetic or collaborative discourse.

Some platforms take a less flammable approach to public discourse without sacrificing substance or the equal presence of both sides.  Jubilee’s Middle Ground series on YouTube offers a unique setting for public discourse in which individuals with specific opposing stances or statuses come together to answer questions and discuss their ideas in what is typically an open-minded an nonthreatening environment.  With clickbait-y titles such as “Can Trump Supporters And Immigrants See Eye to Eye?” or “Can Sex Workers and Pastors Find Middle Ground?” it’s hard to tell whether Jubilee truly wants to facilitate authentic public discourse, or if they are simply playing into our growing desire to see at least some people get along amidst the heightened polarization in our country.   

What do you think of platforms like TED or  Jubilee's Middle Ground?  Are they laying the groundwork for a road to reconstructed public discourse that generates ideas and connections instead of polarizing opposing sides?  Or are they simply a spattering of plastic cups in the recycling bin that provide a temporary, feel-good countermeasure to an ever growing problem?

 

Alt-Right Rhetoric: How Normal People Become White Nationalists

In our last class, we spent some time questioning what attracts people to the white nationalist movement. I wanted to devote some time to the answer, because I think it’s more complicated than “racists feel emboldened in this political climate” (which they do) or “fearmongering can make people believe crazy things” (which it does). What I don’t think we realize is that the white nationalist movement has their recruitment tactics down to an art.

White nationalism operates under a blanket of centrism and general acceptability. They don’t lead with the “white ethnostate” stuff. Though there are exceptions, they recognize that overt Nazism is despised, and they intentionally subvert it. They take advantage of Internet meme culture, mob mentality, and fearmongering to radicalize their members: usually young, socially awkward men. They introduce racist, conspiratorial ideas in increments--gradually getting more radical and overtly fascist as they go--until a person is fully indoctrinated.

They remediate popular memes like Pepe the Frog to spread hateful ideology under a guise of “insensitive but ultimately harmless joking”, which serves to desensitize people to racist ideologies. These jokes are often regurgitated and spread through digital spaces without awareness of the real intent. The facade of humor is essential during this process. It makes hateful ideas both palatable and circulatable, because they’re “just jokes”. It also makes it more difficult to scare away newer members who are not fully indoctrinated, once again because it’s easy to dismiss a joke or accuse somebody of being oversensitive.

At the same time, they appeal to a person’s beliefs in egalitarianism and free speech, and their distaste of socialism and political correctness. Perhaps the most powerful of these tactics is the call to unify against the SJW or “Social Justice Warrior”, a pejorative for those who advocate for civil progress. SJWs are thought to have a shallow grasp of the social issues they stand for, and have a reputation of being overdramatic and easily offended. And the Internet loves to hate them. SJW-bashing isn’t limited to white nationalists, and can be observed in moderate and even progressive spaces. What many people who regurgitate popular anti-SJW rhetoric, though, is that the vilification of the SJW relies on the idea that the left overreacts to falsely perceived problems (like race/gender discrimination), while the right attempts to solve real problems. White nationalists take this hatred that exists everywhere on the Internet and uses it to radicalize people and dismiss valid Leftist arguments.

They also fearmonger. They convince their members that white people, specifically white men, are at risk. Joining the white nationalist movement is a form of self-defense against the non-white “other” who seeks to displace them from their rightfully earned jobs, places at educational institutions, and so on. It takes the blame for all problems, personal and societal, off the white male person. The anti-fascist journalist Deo articulates this in her Medium article, from the standpoint of the unfulfilled and unsuccessful young white man seeking to understand his station in life:

His lack of friendships lies in public schools indoctrinating children with liberal lies, his lack of a romantic partner is the fault of Feminism, his lack of a college degree is due to equal opportunity laws and affirmative action, his lack of employment is the fault of globalist elites, his lack of fulfillment in his life is due to societal anti-whiteness, his unhappiness is the fault of others thrusting ‘white guilt’ upon him.” - “How White Nationalism Courts Internet Nerd Culture”

Through fearmongering, the white nationalist movement valorizes racism. Everything from denying immigration based on race to outright violence and murder is justifiable, even necessary, for the sake of “national security”. Donald Trump’s multiple claims that Latino immigrants are rapists and murderers that must be barred from entering the US is a prime example of this logic leaching into the major political parties. Returning to Jonathan Haidt’s Ted Talk about morality and the principle of “harm/care”, the alt-right teaches its members that white people are unjustly harmed by non-white people.

White nationalist rhetoric also intentionally disassociates from debate. One of the many tactics of the movement is that of “gish gallop”, which floods a conversation with a mass of replies that do not present strong arguments, but nonetheless cannot be debunked due to sheer number. Another tactic is the cry of “fake news”. It doesn’t matter how many nonpartisan, peer-reviewed scientific journals we might offer: any information that contradicts white supremacist pseudoscience is “Leftist propaganda” and immediately dismissed. This is where the call to “punch a Nazi” comes in. Despite its wording, the goal of this movement isn’t to incite violence so much as it is to demand that we stop treating Nazis with civility. We can’t treat Nazis as if they have a valid political platform, because they don’t. They’re Nazis.

In the wake of tragedies like those at Charlottesville, Aztec, and most recently Christchurch, it is more important than ever to be familiar with white nationalist rhetoric so that we may resist the movement and protect the people we know from adding to its numbers.