🐱 How to stop someone becoming radicalised online

CatParty

Fears are growing about the seemingly unstoppable descent into alt-right radicalisation many young men are falling into. A visiting expert says it doesn’t have to be like that, reports Sophie Bateman.

Since the Christchurch mosque attacks, a number of urgent changes have been made in New Zealand: semi-automatic weapons have been banned, media guidelines for reporting terrorism have been updated – and people are finally taking the threat of online far-right radicalisation seriously.

Before March 15, most of us were blissfully unaware of the darkest corners of the internet. But now a whole host of phrases and imagery – and the violent ideology behind them – are grimly familiar to us all. The 8chan logo. The finger and thumb curled into an ‘OK’ symbol, a blur in courtroom footage. The phrase “Subscribe to PewDiePie”.

Everyone is desperate to understand the surreal and many-layered world that can poison a mind. Media outlets have run countless articles dedicated to decoding memes and explaining how anonymous message boards work, alongside profiles of prominent neo-fascists.

For four months now, the country and wider world have been trying to work out what it all means to prevent it from happening again. In an Auckland University lecture theatre on Monday evening, a crowd gathered to hear the insights of someone who’s made it their business to figure it out.

Hailing from the Arizonan borderland of immigrant detainment camps and roaming paramilitary militias, Emmi Bevensee has witnessed firsthand the alarming re-emergence of American fascism – and their doctoral research is dedicated to how it happened.

To help make sense of the chaotic dynamic we’re navigating, Bevensee says we should think of the current global resurgence of fascism as the latest wave of many throughout history.

“Fascism tends to gather power, then people realise it doesn’t make the trains run on time and it falls into disfavour,” they say. “How bad does it get during that period is what we have to figure out.”

The room Bevensee addresses is charged with the kind of electricity that only comes from fervent engagement with the topic at hand. There are nods and sighs, chuckles and groans from around the room at each mention of Pepe and Kekistan and Richard Spencer. This is an internet-literate (mostly) young audience well-versed in the minutiae of the far-right technosphere. What they need to know is how these memes can form the stepping stones to mass violence.

Bevensee theorises online extremists are trying to “shift the Overton window” – the realm of acceptable public discourse – to the right. Edgy jokes are a strategy to push the boundaries of acceptability under the guise of facetiousness.

It’s a “malicious form of cheekiness”, they say, a world apart from the “naughtiness” Arundhati Roy discussed at the Auckland Writers Festival the previous week. Whereas the Indian polemicist’s playful political activism challenges the status quo, the online right’s sense of mischief seeks to preserve it while maintaining its paradoxical self-image as a disruptive punk movement.

In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, historian Robert Paxton defines fascism as “Dictatorship against the Left amidst popular enthusiasm…” The rapid growth of progressive social movements advancing the rights of the marginalised (in turn helped along by the internet) has generated a counter-movement made up almost entirely of straight white men.

Why is this particular demographic, which has enjoyed the lion’s share of cultural and political power in the western world for centuries, so vulnerable to extremism?

“You have a lot of people for the first time experiencing a much less extreme mirror of the alienation that marginalised people feel,” Bevensee explains. “If you have someone who’s never been a minority in their life, for the first time feeling like ‘Oh my God, I’m unwelcome in this space’, or ‘I am not able to dominate this space in the way I’m used to’, that can feel like being affronted.”

So how can the left fight fascism and entice away its potential recruits? By embracing radical niceness and empathy, an inherently anti-fascist notion. The trouble is, Bevensee explains, that’s just not as appealing as the transgressive delight of being in on an edgy joke.

“Unfortunately empathy is very cheesy. It’s so true that it’s obvious, and in its obviousness it’s very uncool to say out loud because everyone knows it. It’s not a viral meme in the way edgy irony is. Bitter, detached irony has this quality of ‘I’ve seen some great mystery I can show you, that’s why I’m so dark and can play this game’. It’s almost like a cult, I have access to this hidden wisdom but I don’t even care.”

Unlike ISIS propaganda which sells recruits a utopian vision of happiness under a radical Islamic caliphate, the far-right sucks people in by feeding into their melancholy and discouraging hope. Someone locked in a hardened shell of loneliness will likely find this brand of cynicism relatable – but the far-right hardly has a monopoly on misery.

“It’s not like leftist communities are all kittens and rainbows,” Bevensee says. “We’re all struggling, we’re all experiencing existential dread. We’re all horrified at the state of the world, climate change. That’s why people get into movements, whether far right or left. So it’s not as if we don’t have access to that darkness, we’re just seeing that nihilism and saying ‘Okay that’s a part of reality, but I want to hope for something better’ or ‘I want to try to make something better’. And even if it’s hard, in that experience we’ll learn a lot and build social fabric and experience new better forms of being in interaction with each other.

“And that’s quite powerful. It’s quite beautiful. But it’s hard to condense. It’s not a meme in the same way. It’s not simple. Fascism is good in that it has hot takes, one liners you can just throw out. It appeals to a lot of human things like condescension, which is very emotionally satisfying.”

They say someone who embraces the far-right isn’t just a danger to the marginalised members of their community, but to themselves.

“Appealing to those dark drives, while it has that viral quality, it destroys the host. You just go further and further into feeding that part of you that wants to dominate other people. It’s a corrosive force. So we have to learn how to healthfully engage with it.”

1564495470757.png


It’s crucial for people to recognise when a friend or relative crosses over from healthy intellectual curiosity into embracing a violent ideology. But that’s easier said than done. It’s impossible to say for certain that a teenage boy who watches a few Jordan Peterson videos is going to make the leap to Steven Crowder to Stefan Molyneux to Stormfront, but there is a clear pathway laid out for him thanks to the YouTube algorithm.

Bevensee says it’s common to watch someone creep “further and further through the curiosity lens” into full-blown white nationalism, but only those close to that person have the ability to stop them.

“It’s quite contextual. If it’s in your immediate community, you have to pay attention to people and we can’t expect minorities to explain their experience and deradicalise everyone and do all this super hard work. We have to look after our own communities and we have to learn together and rebuild social fabrics and integrate what we preach into how we actually live, so that countering white nationalist extremism seems like the beneficial choice that it is.”

Leftist activists have known the extent of the threat of online fascism for a long time, yet those who identify with right-wing ideology tend to know little about the left beyond stereotypes. Bevensee has spoken with a number of Peterson fans who were astonished to learn that discussions about male rape emerged from feminist communities, or that leftist activists are constantly debating flaws within their own movement. This discrepancy in each side’s knowledge of the other seems to prove which one communicates its ideology to a mass audience more effectively.

“The alt right was an internet movement, born from the internet, an internet fluid movement,” Bevensee says. “So they’re quite good at the internet, utilising the sardonic irony, the detached ‘I’m just joking but not actually’ way that memes work. Whereas a lot of leftist movements are born of dusty books or practices, and you only gain them through having been embedded in social movements.”

However they reject the notion that the right is better at the internet, citing a burgeoning online leftist movement led by creators – such as YouTuber Contrapoints – who deftly engage with far-right rhetoric and disarm it with wit, charm and humour.

The internet is a limited sphere and fascism does spill from the screen to the street. The same university at which Bevensee spoke has come under scrutiny for a perceived unwillingness to act on reports of increased neo-Nazi activity on campus since March.

A student in the audience says that as a dark-skinned Sri Lankan, he’s felt victimised by white faculty members and students who don’t respond well to being challenged about racism. There’s a ripple of agreement around the room – and a bristle of annoyance at a man in the back row who calls the student’s comment racist itself, before trying to argue with Bevensee about anti-fascist violence.

Extremist rhetoric grows online, but the real world is where its impact is felt. It would seem getting wise to the far-right’s recruitment tactics is of limited use if institutions won’t take action. But Bevensee, who has experience in grassroots anti-fascist organising, isn’t surprised by the allegations of apathy.

“If you rely on authorities to protect you from fascism, you will be disappointed.”

It’s up to the students themselves to stamp it out, they say, by outnumbering far-right extremists when they do reveal themselves and try to gather and dominate public space. Fascists attract fans by signalling strength, so humiliation is an effective tactic to reduce their power – a photo of a sodden Richard Spencer elicits gleeful audience speculation that he may have just been milkshaked.

“I don’t know that we’ll ever be completely free of fascism, but if we can make it a weird fringe group no one takes seriously like Flat Earth, that might be the best we can hope for.”
 
You can stop people from becoming radicalized by stopping being so insufferably annoying that people become radicalized just to spite you.
 
Lmao they think Jordan Peterson who is the most Jewish person not named Feinstein is a Nazi.
 
You know, hate speech laws in Yugoslavia helped fuel ethnic hatreds. When various ethnic groups weren't allowed to produce actual hateful material towards their neighbors, they kept those hatreds in their closed mouths only to manifest into violent rage when the inevitable collaspe came.
good point, bad example. the balkan people always hated each other.
 
Make fun of them relentlessly (the Chads and Stacie's probably shouldnt though since they're the triggers for shootings most of the time)
Making fun of past shooters helps too because it'll discourage them from trying to imitate them at least somewhat because you can't underestimate nihilism faggotry.
 
Simple, don't limit yourself to a bubble and surround yourself with people that only affirm your own beliefs. When you can control what you're hearing and limit yourself to only talking to people that agree with you, your perceptions get distorted. I've known so many people who started out leaning to the left, but reasonable and open to the opinions of others get completely radicalized into these screaming, rabid SJW/antifa/Marxist fucktards because they only kept the company of people who gave them asspats and delivered that dopamine rush of feeling like they're the heroes of the story making a stand against the absolute evil of "those others" who don't think like they do.
But other views big gay.
 
But now a whole host of phrases and imagery – and the violent ideology behind them – are grimly familiar to us all. The 8chan logo. The finger and thumb curled into an ‘OK’ symbol, a blur in courtroom footage. The phrase “Subscribe to PewDiePie”.

So, ban the 👌 symbol and PewDiePie?
 
So, ban the 👌 symbol and PewDiePie?
Tarrant was from Australia— we must impose sanctions on their country. He also drank water and breathed air, congress needs to push legislation to ban these dangerous weapons of hate and radicalization.
Blaming associations for something is beyond exceptional.
 
Simple: Get off your fat fucking ass, stay off social media, stop watching cable and go out into the real world so you can finally figure out that it's not as bad and scary as Twitter, the clickbait mongers and the MSM want you to believe it is
 
Oh no, Agnes! I feel the devil in me, forcing me to watch *gulp* Steven Crowder videos while playing Dungeons & Dragons and listening to the Negro's jazz music!
 
Why yes, I believe I can make young men left wing by shilling a tranny commie in condescendingly smug articles, how could you tell
 
It’s crucial for people to recognise when a friend or relative crosses over from healthy intellectual curiosity into embracing a violent ideology. But that’s easier said than done. It’s impossible to say for certain that a teenage boy who watches a few Jordan Peterson videos is going to make the leap to Steven Crowder to Stefan Molyneux to Stormfront, but there is a clear pathway laid out for him thanks to the YouTube algorithm.

Remember how people absolutely lost their shit when the Department of Homeland Security was created right after 9/11 and they had a motto "if you see something, say something?"

When Bush did it to Muslims = worse than Hitler
When the Left does it to whites = woke af

Why couldn't these assholes just leave America as they promised when Trump was elected?*sigh*
 
By reference from a friend a few months back I picked up a book called "The New White Supremecy in America" by Carol M Swain" - normally I wouldn't have cared for such a book, but I found it interesting for several reasons.

First, it was written in the early 2000s. It predicted a new radicalized movement of polished, ivy league educated individuals who would come off charming and approachable. Unlike their predecessors in white identity movements, they'd dress well and be able to debate with rational sounding arguments, appealing much of the time to humor. Sounds like Richard Spencer, right? Or a handful of others. Regardless of what you or I may personally think of him, their followers certainly perceive them to be most of these things.

Next, she predicts a vague, increased use of the internet among people who would otherwise not have social interactions or encounter politics in their daily lives. Focusing on Stormfront in it's heyday, she notes that the internet is the easiest place for like-minded individuals to congregate. I doubt she could have predicted just how much the internet would change and be popularized, but surprisingly enough she is not a proponent of censorship, even in the more recent interviews I have seen from her. Carol M Swain instead focuses on the greater issue that was brought up already in this thread: creating echo chambers. It is with some amazing accuracy that she predicts the policing and moderation of popular sites turning into echo chambers - and we can see that with Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. It's very interesting how, when given free reign to speak one's mind online (for example in a place like KF) people enjoy pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in a workplace environment (we do like to say nigger, do we not?), but actually discussion has taken place in a way that you'll never see on Twitter or /pol/, (two polar opposites of the spectrum with the same echo chamber tendencies).

Touching upon her last point of internet usage, it's uncanny how the author has been able to predict - however vaguely - memes. Using humor, news, and wit appeals to a younger audience. Unlike the previous generations of active supremecists, she believes the new generation will consist of young adults, fresh faces that appeal to an audience that has a growing feeling of marginalization due to political correctness.

Lastly, the author is black. You wouldn't know it unless it was mentioned. She takes an extremely unbiased approach to her research, humanizing the white supremecists that are interviewed (she has a white fellow do it for her) in her book. Make no mistake, she does not humanize the concept of supremecy, but instead shows that the individuals who get caught up in radical movements are parents, grandparents, sons, and daughters.

That's where all her points come together. Because these are people, and people want to discuss and learn and have their ideas evolve. Putting them in an echo chamber is only going to validate the opinions they already have and not ask them to question anything. It's the task of getting people to seek change, because change only comes from within. Change isn't going to come from a priest preaching to an atheist or an atheist lecturing a priest. People need to be able to wander into these conversations and reflections on their own. They need to feel as if the words or idea is specifically reaching out to them, tailored perhaps in a way that addresses a problem or solution in their lives. Which is likely how they got radicalized in either direction in the first place.

Edit : note I am not saying she was the first to point out or make these predictions, only that I found it interesting the author was able to relate it to the current events of the time, which provided reason for why white supremacists would perhaps change how they did. It's not that she did predict these things, it's the evidence and stories behind why she agreed with these conclusions.
 
Última edición:
Concerning Robert Paxton, the historian who coined the "definition" of fascism cited in the article, here's another good quote from the same writer. I'm sure you're going to enjoy this one.
Fascist movements varied so conspicuously from one national setting to another, moreover, that some even doubt that the term fascism has any meaning other than as a smear word. The epithet has been so loosely used that practically everyone who either holds or shakes authority has been someone's fascist. Perhaps, the doubters suggest, it would be better just to scrap the term.
 
It predicted a new radicalized movement of polished, ivy league educated individuals who would come off charming and approachable. Unlike their predecessors in white identity movements, they'd dress well and be able to debate with rational sounding arguments, appealing much of the time to humor. Sounds like Richard Spencer, right? Or a handful of others.
Or fucking David Duke who had way more prominence than Richard Spencer ever had and was, you know, actually part of the KKK and was in the limelight before the 2010's.

Apart from the Internet part, none of this is prophetic- it was already happening, dude.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo