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.
I'd write that many people indeed perceive continuous text in a large, bold font as "shouting", similarly to all caps.
My advice: set up your web browser so regular sized, unemphasized text is comfortable to read and write. Try ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus to "zoom" and make everything larger or smaller; ctrl-0 (zero on the regular keyboard) quickly resets to "normal" size. (These work in Firefox, Chrome, and IE, and probably others.) Holding down Ctrl while moving the scroll wheel on the mouse also changes the size. Your settings should be remembered separately for each website, say atheistnexus.org vs. npr.org.
(There may also be other, general settings for forcing text to be displayed in a particular font and size. Try the zoom setting first.)
Then, you can use bold, italics, underlining, sizes, and other text effects selectively, to emphasize whatever you want to.
Yes, I was noticing my own reaction to replies in large, bold text, as "I don't feel like a confrontation; maybe I'll read it later" -- even though rationally I know that's not how you meant it!
Many people have talked and written about bold, large, allcaps, etc. formatting that feels like "shouting". It's right to question things "everyone knows", but the perception is well attested. A few things I found in quick web searching:
Then, why did they increase the font size, bold the words and turn them red? Those three formatting actions were specifically taken to increase the emphasis of their words... When making a statement in this manner they willingly leave the perceived level of emphasis up to the other side." ("Large, Red and Bold: Is This Shouting Too?" at netmanners.com)