This Is Exactly The Kind Of Tribalism I'm Talking About

I spend a fair amount of time talking about “the social media age.” The algorithmically curated outage, the pursuit of likes and retweets, the easy formation of online mobs, the ability to “cancel” people for things they said a decade ago.

But it’s easy to forget that the algorithms and the outrage are fuelled by ordinary people. People with huge followings, and occasionally dubious agendas, who mine outrage in exchange for cash.

In my article, Calling A Ceasefire In The Culture Wars, I wrote, amongst other things, about Chaya Raitchik, owner of the infamous LibsOfTikTok Twitter account. I noted that her popularity is based largely on her willingness to encourage the worst and laziest intellectual instincts of her followers.

Rod offered a pretty good example of the kind of thinking that results from this.

---

Rod:

I agree with everything you say here, but one tendency I notice regarding the culture war is that the front line is occupied by the most extreme elements. And that’s happening in this article too.

For example, a very small percentage of people actually think the way Chaya Raitchik does, but her positions are amplified the most. It seems the solution, as far as social media is concerned, is not to ban or cancel anybody (except in cases that explicitly call for physical violence), but to algorithmically downvote extreme views so that the more moderate views that a much larger percentage of the population hold can be amplified.

Oh, and one other small thing worth mentioning here is that the Republicans last year really surprised me in the midterms with their general rejection of the extremist factions among their ranks. It is clear that at the very least, extreme views do not win at the ballot box.

---

Steve QJ:

“For example, a very small percentage of people actually think the way Chaya Raitchik does, but her positions are amplified the most.”

Chaya Raichik has 1.7 million followers on Twitter alone. She is regularly cited by major news organisations. I hardly think you can say only a small percentage of people think the way she does. And more to the point, the size of her influence means she can paint narratives that persuade people to think the way she does.

She devotes almost 100% of her time to highlighting only the most extreme, deranged elements of the LGBT community. Now, to be clear, those elements need to be highlighted. There are some very worrying things happening at the fringes. But she presents those fringes as if they're the whole community.

This is the process of dehumanisation I'm talking about. It doesn't need to be a call to open genocide, narrative building is by far more effective than bald-faced attacks.

---

Rod:

Right, but the opposite happens too…the left uses her posts to paint the entire right