Most would have heard of the phrase “bite your tongue”, if not, the phrase simply means to stop yourself from saying what’s on your mind specifically in a disagreement. There is this idea still instilled in a lot of us to ignore what we disagree with to maintain peace. To an extent I agree with the idea of maintaining peace, creating an open and judgement free environment to discuss views and potentially learn something new or find common ground. However, can this still be the case when the opinion you disagree with is rooted in hatred? It is evident in the reputation that the internet has earned itself; a platform for screaming matches to be publicly gawked at for entertainment. Behind a screen, it is easy to argue with a blank profile picture. The public nature of this, however, means that the bigger the argument, the more attention it receives and the more those initial hateful views are spread, which is the opposite of what was meant to be achieved. As a result, we are seeing cases of real-life violence inspired by online8u hate groups.

It’s clear that there has been a shift in popular online content. Arguably, since Andrew Tate has become well known outside the online space, it feels as if misogyny has become more accepted. It doesn’t have to hide in subreddits or tweets from accounts with no profile picture and no followers; which means it becomes harder to ignore. Creators that have followed in Tate’s footsteps such as JustPearlyThings have managed to get spots on mainstream talk shows and accumulate subscribers in the millions. However, alongside these creators with millions of followers are others on the opposite side of the spectrum making reaction videos that are accumulating similar, if not higher, views. This exposes the original content to a new audience that isn’t particularly made for them but may still entice them into a “hate watch” or to check if the original source is truly as outrageous as the reaction creator makes it out to be. Each response video, each hate-watch inadvertently adds to the creator’s popularity and reach.

So that leads to the question is responding to what we disagree with online just increasing engagement and spreading these views. Typically, ignoring or blocking is the best course of action when dealing with online users that express opinions you disagree with. However, these aren’t passive comments nor are they about trivial topics. Alt-right comments often express direct intolerance and hate towards different social groups; many of these are made with the intention to spread hate and incite violence. A well-known online community often associated with Tate and similar creators due to their stance on women is called the incel community, often found in the ‘manosphere’. There are many cases of murder and violence committed by those attached to these incel groups. There is clear intent and intolerance from groups such as incel communities, it is no longer just words on a screen but manifested, targeted, physical violence. So, are we meant to just be idle?

From my perspective, a reply to a comment made by someone who is so indoctrinated by the community of hate they have found comfort in is not going to change their views. However, it is dangerous to allow online communities built on misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. to flourish as they are now. It is an issue we must start discussing outside of online spaces and consider in legislation. I’m afraid politicians are not keeping up to date with what’s happening online and are missing the early signs of a developing norm of polarised and extreme views moving from hidden forums discussing violent crimes to inspiring physical attacks.

With all this newly accumulated popularity comes along extreme, and often very young, fans who will

engage with the culture of misogyny, homophobia and hatred created by creators like Tate. There are also spectators who will despise everything that these creators have to say. Everybody wants to be right. Everybody wants their ‘opponent’ to read their point and say “I was wrong, and I agree with you”. But that is never going to happen online. So, is there a point in exposing and creating a discourse around these views, or should we bite our tongues? Unfortunately, these views left unchecked will manifest into real life consequences, and so there is a sort of moral duty to offer an alternative that will hopefully attract more engagement. Also on a higher level, due to the crimes already committed as a result of these communities online, we need to start considering the role online culture plays into physical acts of violence from a legislative perspective.

Related Blogs

• 

  Shamelessly trying to coin a new term: Filter Politics

• 

  Does the Online Safety Act violate privacy too harshly over security concerns?

• 

  Why we need to regulate Online Platforms and what states are missing

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.