The term "bully" just doesn't seem to capture the behavior described in this piece. To send threatening images, organize wide-scale negative reviews of a person's online properties, doxx, etc with the intent to silence someone needs some other word. "Online terrorist" is too strong, but something closer to that term seems more appropriate.<p>I'm increasingly of the opinion that more high-profile court cases are needed to keep this sort of psychopathy in check. That's, of course, easier said than done.
"Whenever someone like me gets called a "white supremacist" for defending someone's right to post a job opportunity without being subject to attack, it devalues a term whose meaning is indispensable to retain so that genuine instances of racism can be identified and rightfully addressed."<p>Wow, this is basically what all us "crazy alt-right" people have been worried was going to happen since day 1.<p>Second and third order consequences are not always that hard to foresee.
Cancel culture (and the nastier more vicious personal threat / personal attack) is an artifact of how the internet empowers populism. When it comes to running a non-anonymous social media account, there's simply only two choices:<p>(1) You run a low profile and nobody cares what you post unless you're unlucky. If your sphere is small enough, or maybe you run a Facebook group with only a few thousand people on a relatively uncontroversial topic you're probably okay. Probably. For now.<p>(2) You need to have a consistent take and defense with respect to every social issue and culture war that exists in the entirety of online discourse. You build your sphere into one that agrees with you, and you're always up-to-date on the latest issues, so you don't get cancelled. You might end up cancelled anyways, if a much larger social circle gets unleashed on you (e.g. a content creator 10x or 100x your size does a video about your bad take on XYZ and tarnishes your brand)
I think extreme response to disagreement is unfortunately becoming a standard communication style. We see this pattern of speech constantly reinforced on the internet and TV. It feels very satisfying. It comes across as decisive and effective (qualities of a leader!) and we keep emulating it. Each time we repeat it we get that dopamine hit of getting a "win". Over time it just becomes a go-to, automatic response. Even among people who theoretically disagree with that behavior.<p>I am constantly exhausted by this in-vogue communication style. I see this at work where a minor difference of opinion on whether to round a number becomes a battle where one side is framed as "real science" and I guess the other is anti-science. Minor things get immediately reframed as a fight to be won. I see members of my family adopting this, where even mundane conversations about what freeway to take are an opener for some political jab. Baiting for disagreement to get that dopamine hit of "winning". I also see this among friends, where many conversations just seem to be continuous, defensive reinforcements of identity.
I appreciate the author's courage and her willingness to offer a solution but this standing-up to bullies thing isn't going to be the way forward. The situation is less a schoolyard bully and more a roving gang which, contrary to the moral sensibilities of normal folk, doesn't mind wielding knives and bludgeoning weapons. Far too perilous for the casual good samaritan. Besides being outclassed miltarily, the normal folk have livelihoods to protect, carrying vulnerable children and mortgages into the fray making theirs an uphill battle with the mob on high ground standing only to gain.<p>My favorite solution so far is delete social media and take away the audience.
When you own the group, you just kick those toxic people out like any other online community.<p>"You are in violation of our community guidelines, <i>kick</i>"<p>And then you ignore them. Nothing is worse than trying to hurt someone remotely, and they don't even notice you.
The media class deliberately created these narratives about how "the other side" are unredeemable monsters and the only solution is to vote for one of the two corporate-backed political parties (and certainly not the <i>other</i> one). So I don't sympathize with Katherine Brodsky getting bitten by her industry's own polarization tactic.
It is very difficult to hold even slightly counter opinions due to people like these. Moreover coming from a country whose politics is very different unlike the easier left vs right / libertarian vs regulation preferred compass in the states, everything is very grey in the rest of the world. A lazy Western media which does not give nuance to discussions not involving itself and new generations who hold up influencers and practice the same cancel culture as in the West have really made the political discourse among young people even here devoid of anything meaningful.