Amanda Marcotte argues that "the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy." In this horrible age of feminism, liberated women date whomever they want and leave bad marriages. It's so hard for entitled misogynists to get and control the submissive female partners that they need to boost their egos.
image source: Pepe, Cantwell (the article), text mine
... the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy. While there hasn’t been any rigid academic analysis of this phenomenon, sites like We Hunted the Mammoth, which started as a way to monitor the various and overlapping worlds of online misogyny, have tracked that when men get together to gripe about their resentment of women’s growing independence, they often start drifting toward talking about “white genocide” and other white supremacist ideas.
The world of online misogynists is a complex maze. Some of the communities are geared towards older, divorced men. Some are “pick-up artist” sites, geared towards younger men who think they aren’t getting the female attention they believe they’re due. Some identify as “men going their own way,” which is to say giving up on women altogether. But what brings them together is anger over the fact that feminism has liberated women to date whomever they wish and leave marriages that aren’t working. This makes it much harder, in the “men’s rights” misogynist view, for men to acquire or keep the submissive female partners they feel entitled to.
Why hating women would lead so many men to hating nonwhite people is difficult to parse in logical terms. But racism and sexism aren’t rational ideologies and really aren’t bound by the basic rules of logic. At the root of both lies a thwarted sense of entitlement and a sense that women and people of color are somehow stealing what is the white man’s due. [emphasis mine]
We already know that online trolls were the early nucleus of the resurgent hate.
What is shouting on the Internet?
If someone tells you to stop shouting, it's another way of saying, "TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK." When someone is TYPING AN ENTIRE SENTENCE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, that person is SHOUTING.
I got this in a google search for "shouting with text", but couldn't isolate a link to the answer. Needless to say all caps and bold and larger font is very loud shouting.
A SHOUT & a whisper.
Ruth, "shouts more colorfully and with pix whose relevance I" catch.
Do I routinely shout? Perhaps my yellow backgrounding, with occasional bolding, of the most important parts of a quote do count as shouting. My intent is to make it easier for readers to grasp what's most important, rather than raising my voice for attention or in anger.
That hopefully isn't the same as raising my voice at readers.
In fact I'm repulsed by "news" programs where people shout at each other, interrupting, like angry 12 year olds. Such conversation is, to me, the opposite of respectful dialogue.
Ruth, decades ago radio and tv played adverts at a higher volume than their programming.
When an FCC rule stopped that, some advertisers fiddled with their electronics and played ads louder.
The two differ; electronic technicians can tell you how.
Ruth, for what purpose do you ask?
I was never shouting here. I prefer this font style because I find the tiny and unbolded text to be an eyesore that I have to focus on more than the text that I use.
Thanks for your explanation, Shinedowness. Despite your benign intention, large font & bold is interpreted as shouting. It makes people cringe. I remember learning this years ago when I used capital letters for an entire post (years ago in a Myspace Atheist group). It hadn't occurred to me either.
You could compose that way, if it's comfortable for you, and then paste the plain text here. If you confined bold or larger font to the just your main point, your whole message wouldn't come across as outdoor voice.
I used to do that a lot with larger font when posting discussions, before I learned how to do HTML for yellow background. Yellow comes across more as highlighting something important in text, rather than shouting.
You're welcome, and I understand.
I want to know why the many atheists were unable to grasp that.
Benign intention doesn't come across when social convention dictates the opposite. I was a teacher. Some students insisted that their personal spelling preferences should be respected. "That's how I spell it!" Part of my job in educating was to convince them that the world doesn't work that way. If you persist in using large font bold, you will be perceived as a shouter. It gives the impression that you are not accustomed to being listened to with respect. That you feel as if you need to raise you voice or you'll be ignored. We have a small active group here, and we really do pay attention to what you say. I'd like to gently, respectfully, guide you to speak the way everyone else does, to avoid that.
For myself, all big text is slightly uncomfortable to read. I need to work harder to understand what you're saying, almost as if I'm reacting defensively to anger. I don't choose friends who shout at me. Despite my angry passions about politics, misogyny, racism, and climate disruption, I'm a peaceful sort person to person. <sigh>
Ruth, I was in graduate school in Tallahassee studying math and taking a course required for a teaching certificate when English teachers in the western panhandle started accepting the English spoken by rural people, many of them black, as a legitimate language. They told students that in the cities they will see a different kind of English and taught it as an option.
As I recall, interpersonal communication and its recognition of power in relationships evolved from that.
Above, you wrote, “If you persist in using large font bold, you will be perceived as a shouter.”
Perceived by whom?
I would have written , “If you persist in using large font bold, I may perceive you as a shouter.”