Is the world becoming increasingly intolerant? In fact, quite ironically it seems that the more we talk about tolerance, the more we seem to notice intolerance everywhere. There may certainly be some truth to the fact there was a lot of intolerance always, but with increasing social awareness on these issues, we are identifying them only now, and that gives the impression that intolerance is increasing. However I am of the opinion that intolerance is in fact increasing, though I do not have any research or evidence to quote here.
The Indian liberal calls the conservative a 'bhakt', while getting called a 'libtard' by the conservative in return. On the global internet stage (which is basically the social media) we have the 'social justice warrior snowflakes' fighting the regressive forces of 'fundamentalists,' 'extremists,' and 'bigots.' A popular youtube essayist, CGP Grey explains this internet phenomenon in the form of thought germs travelling through the internet and affecting people in this video. Now, the phenomenon itself is quite interesting and harmless in itself. But activities on the internet often find ways to materialize even in the offline world. So, once again we ask the question, "is the world becoming increasingly intolerant, and if yes, why?"
One of the possible reasons is the nature of internet itself. Internet offers a level of anonymity and detachment that allows people to say things that cannot be said in the offline world. Anonymity can be seen in sites like reddit and youtube, while facebook though not necessarily anonymous still offers a level of detachment, which means that who you are on facebook need not necessarily be who you are in the offline world. And this allows you to get away with saying things. One example for this is the popular manga/anime series Deathnote, where approval of Kira begins in the internet. People want to maintain a level of decency in the offline everyday society, but online they are hailing Kira as the god of the new age under the guise of anonymity.
Another possible reason is the connectivity of the internet as explained by CGP Grey in the above mentioned video. Because of the connectivity, thought germs are not limited by geography, and can spread far and wide. And like his example of the plant and butterfly shows, when thought germs affect individuals, they will inevitably end up joining one or two sides of the existing debate, and the debate itself keeps growing in that manner.
Most communities have their own taboos, not just in terms of topics of conversation but also in terms of behaviour. Accordingly, there is a constant censoring of behaviour and speech by every member of the community. On the internet, however, due to its cosmopolitan nature as well as due to the lack of gatekeeping, there are no clearly defined taboos and subsequently no clearly defined uniform censorship. So, people feel free to speak and behave in manners otherwise unacceptable in their offline communities.
This means, if a particular (offline) community is against the curtailing of the freedom of thought and expression, on the internet, people of the same community will find it easier to express intolerant views, and may find people from across the world who may agree to their intolerant views. This will further validate their own opinions and strengthen their own resolution to their opinion. Moreover, these individuals form their intolerant communities online and may decide to meet offline as well. In this case, we can see how internet in a direct way contributes to increasing intolerance.
However, is this something that can be blamed on the internet? If a person's behaviour is different from due to lack of an anonymity, isn't that behaviour just a performance, akin to wearing a mask? Similarly, isn't who a person is in the lack of censoring and gatekeeping, the person's most honest self? If the answer to these questions is yes, then what does it say about the nature of human beings? Do humanism's ideas of man being inherently good still hold good? These questions need to be discussed.
Do feel free to disagree with me, or even agree with me. In any case, if you wish to discuss these issues, leave a comment. I'd like to know what you guys think. Alright, peace!
The Indian liberal calls the conservative a 'bhakt', while getting called a 'libtard' by the conservative in return. On the global internet stage (which is basically the social media) we have the 'social justice warrior snowflakes' fighting the regressive forces of 'fundamentalists,' 'extremists,' and 'bigots.' A popular youtube essayist, CGP Grey explains this internet phenomenon in the form of thought germs travelling through the internet and affecting people in this video. Now, the phenomenon itself is quite interesting and harmless in itself. But activities on the internet often find ways to materialize even in the offline world. So, once again we ask the question, "is the world becoming increasingly intolerant, and if yes, why?"
One of the possible reasons is the nature of internet itself. Internet offers a level of anonymity and detachment that allows people to say things that cannot be said in the offline world. Anonymity can be seen in sites like reddit and youtube, while facebook though not necessarily anonymous still offers a level of detachment, which means that who you are on facebook need not necessarily be who you are in the offline world. And this allows you to get away with saying things. One example for this is the popular manga/anime series Deathnote, where approval of Kira begins in the internet. People want to maintain a level of decency in the offline everyday society, but online they are hailing Kira as the god of the new age under the guise of anonymity.
Another possible reason is the connectivity of the internet as explained by CGP Grey in the above mentioned video. Because of the connectivity, thought germs are not limited by geography, and can spread far and wide. And like his example of the plant and butterfly shows, when thought germs affect individuals, they will inevitably end up joining one or two sides of the existing debate, and the debate itself keeps growing in that manner.
Most communities have their own taboos, not just in terms of topics of conversation but also in terms of behaviour. Accordingly, there is a constant censoring of behaviour and speech by every member of the community. On the internet, however, due to its cosmopolitan nature as well as due to the lack of gatekeeping, there are no clearly defined taboos and subsequently no clearly defined uniform censorship. So, people feel free to speak and behave in manners otherwise unacceptable in their offline communities.
This means, if a particular (offline) community is against the curtailing of the freedom of thought and expression, on the internet, people of the same community will find it easier to express intolerant views, and may find people from across the world who may agree to their intolerant views. This will further validate their own opinions and strengthen their own resolution to their opinion. Moreover, these individuals form their intolerant communities online and may decide to meet offline as well. In this case, we can see how internet in a direct way contributes to increasing intolerance.
However, is this something that can be blamed on the internet? If a person's behaviour is different from due to lack of an anonymity, isn't that behaviour just a performance, akin to wearing a mask? Similarly, isn't who a person is in the lack of censoring and gatekeeping, the person's most honest self? If the answer to these questions is yes, then what does it say about the nature of human beings? Do humanism's ideas of man being inherently good still hold good? These questions need to be discussed.
Do feel free to disagree with me, or even agree with me. In any case, if you wish to discuss these issues, leave a comment. I'd like to know what you guys think. Alright, peace!
No comments:
Post a Comment