Anger and Outrage

Key words: anger, outrage, anonymity, monetization, dehumanization, conspiracy theories, political correctness, cancel culture, social justice warrior

It may seem like anger and outrage often fuel online discourse, perhaps more so than in real life. Many reactionary movements are fueled by anger and outrage, overshadowing potentially valid points and leading to the dehumanization of the opposition. It is important to understand how anger and outrage fuel internet discourse so that we may not fall into the traps that lead us to lash out and dehumanize others.

"Why is everyone on the internet so angry?"
Most people seem to agree that people on the internet are abnormally angry; people are quick to lash out and say things that they would never say to someone in real life. One anecdotal example might be the YouTube comment section, which is notorious for people angrily insulting each other, to the point where many channels prefer to deactivate the comment section entirely. Another example might be Twitter, which is famous for producing unproductive, hot-headed discourse. This is not to say that every interaction, or even the majority of interactions, on these platforms are negative, just that people seem to be more prone to angry outbursts. There are many possible explanations for this phenomenon.

Anonymity
The increased anonymity online may lessen a person’s inhibitions, for there are not any consequences for lashing out in the same way that there are in real life. This also may be why "road rage" is such a widely known phenomenon. A car can provide some degree of anonymity, a certain amount of privacy (it makes it so a person can yell whatever they want and no one will hear what they are saying), but it also may embolden the driver to act irrationally, aggressively, and dangerously. The internet provides similar protection.

It is important to be aware of how we act online because the way we act online can influence the way we act in real life. Outbursts of anger or aggression, even online, can prime people to become more hostile in their daily lives.

Catharsis
There also may be a kind of catharsis, or emotional release, to internet rage. People may feel stressed, anxious, or angry, but have no other outlet to release those emotions. But, once again, violent outbursts can prime people to become more hostile in the future. The lack of consequences validates what would be considered anti-social behavior.

Abstraction
People tend to get more angry at abstract ideas or inanimate objects than living, breathing people. It is easy to forget that a tweet or a YouTube comment was written by a real person. It is not just text on a screen; it is the thought of a real person. But people do not often act like there is a real person on the receiving end of their hateful messages.

This idea also ties into the lack of social consequences, for there are more consequences for getting angry at a real person than the distant idea of a person. A real person can fight back, and a real human can tell their own side of the story, which makes it more difficult to turn them into a one-dimensional villain.

This also highlights the dangers of dehumanization or objectification. Since it is difficult to stay angry at a real person, one might try to justify their rage by making their opponent seem like less than a person. Read more about dehumanization on the "Radicalization" page.

Monetization
Anger and outrage can be easily monetized, for outrage creates an audience. This is the same reason why news outlets use deliberately inflammatory headlines and clickbait; there is money to be made by deliberately misrepresenting a story.

An example people monetizing outrage would be the recent fiasco over Dr. Seuss. According to a Business Insider article, Ted Cruz raised $125,000 in 24 hours by selling signed copies of the Dr. Seuss book Green Eggs and Ham. The donation page read “Stand with Ted & Dr. Seuss against the cancel culture mob to claim your signed copy of Green Eggs and Ham!” This is a reference to Dr. Seuss Enterprises ceasing publication of six books that, according to the official statement, "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong." Notably, Green Eggs and Ham was not one of the books being discontinued.

Anger and Conspiracy Theories
When discussing the necessity for ones need for catharsis, which may arise from the internet, conspiracy theories often fill that void of confusion, stress or anger, that may stem from political or social issues/stress online. One may become angry at the outcome of an event, they may feel a need to find an explanation for an unknown event, and people may look for support systems that arise from similar personal experiences. These are some of the many reasons why people may become so enveloped in conspiracy theories and make it a lifestyle even. A conspiracy theory, by definition, according to Murraystate.edu, is “a constructed attempt to explain social and political events with a premise of secretive malicious intent to push further the agenda of powerful groups that seek to pursue goals in direct opposition to less powerful groups.” When we break this down, we find that conspiracies are really just people trying to explain some sort of unknown political or social event. This confusion can correspond with anger, causing an already sensitive subject like politics, to completely blow out of the water on the internet, causing the need for intense arguments. As we all know, it is much easier to do explain our thinking in the form of memes, jokes, or simply just posts or comments from behind a computer screen, then it is to subject ourselves to sharing our opinions in person and possibly facing criticism.

"Are people too easily offended?"
In a 2016 poll from Pew Research Center, 59% of Americans (78% of Republicans, 68% of Independents, and 37% of Democrats) agreed with the statement “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” Interestingly, the poll also reveals somewhat of a partisan split, for 61% of Democrats agreed that “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds,” whereas only 21% of Republicans and 32% of Independents agreed.

Regardless of whether or not people are actually too easily offended, 59% of Americans seem to think so, and the internet could possibly intensify these concerns. The internet has a way of highlighting the most extreme examples and making it appear mainstream. This is particularly true on Twitter. Assume that someone saw a tweet where a person gets angry over some benign thing. The person who sees that tweet may share it with their followers, who will see the person overreacting, think it's funny, and then share it with all of their followers. Suddenly, that original tweet is trending, and all anyone is talking about is how this one specific person overreacted to something. It is then easy to make the leap from "I can't believe this person is so upset by this" to "I can't believe people are upset by this."

This happens on many different platforms. For example, in YouTube comment sections, it is not uncommon to see more people complaining about people getting offended than people actually getting offended. It is easy assume that more people are offended than actually are.

Political Correctness and Cancel Culture
Connected to the issue of online outrage is the ongoing debate over political correctness and cancel culture. It is difficult to discuss political correctness and cancel culture because not many people agree on what those terms actually mean.

"Political Correctness" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." "PC Culture" refers to the alleged cultural pressure that stifles free speech in the name of making sure not to offend anyone. People have been complaining about political correctness for decades now, and, as mentioned earlier, Pew Research Center found that 59% of Americans agreed that people today are too easily offended.

“Cancel culture” refers to the withdrawal of support from a person, group, or company for saying or doing something believed to be reprehensible, and then pressuring others to withdraw their support as well. Merriam-Webster describes cancel culture as "a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure." It is difficult to identify exactly what qualifies as cancel culture, partly because people online continue to make jokes that deliberately stretch the definition of the term. For instance, people joke that Galileo was "cancelled" by the Church for teaching heliocentrism. The term "cancel culture" may have lost whatever original meaning it may have had. However, it is still important to ask two questions: Is cancel culture real? And is it a real problem? Again, the answer is complicated. Do companies fire employees that are deemed incompatible with their brand? Yes. Do people boycott and withdraw support from people or companies they find reprehensible? Yes. Are public figures criticized and scrutinized for things they have said? Yes. Are these all new problems? Not really. Are these examples of cancel culture? It depends on who you ask. When most people think of cancel culture, they think of it as people being unjustly persecuted or excessively criticized, and most people see cancel culture as being a uniquely online phenomenon. And, indeed, social media does present some unique challenges. Everyone is a public figure on social media, and everything people say is permanently documented somewhere. Also, as mentioned before, Twitter's algorithms tend to create a "villain of the day" and put them on the trending page for everyone to see, which can result in harassment and dogpiling. In this way, perhaps "cancel culture" is more like an extension of cyberbullying. To learn more about the affects of cyberbullying, read “Mental Health in Digital Media”.

However, one of the biggest problems with political correctness and cancel culture occurs when people weaponize the fear of it. When people talk about political correctness of cancel culture, they may attribute it to one side of the political spectrum, or at least some kind of abstract enemy. They treat it as a sign of deliberate warfare rather than just a consequence of the way we communicate with each other and the way social norms are changing. Framing the issue as a war is inherently dehumanizing and eliminates all potentially valuable nuance.

The SJW Discourse
“Social Justice Warrior” (SJW) is a term often used pejoratively online to describe a person who is especially enthusiastic, or perhaps overly enthusiastic, about issues related to race, gender, identity, and other social justice issues. Being an SJW is also associated with being overly sensitive or easily angered. Although the meaning of the term has expanded, becoming essentially synonymous with political correctness, this section will primarily focus on the SJW discourse as it relates to popular media and internet culture.

In a way, the anti-SJW came before the SJW. There was never any kind of organized SJW movement that pushed a specific agenda. Rather, anti-SJWs rallied in their shared opposition to modern feminism, multiculturalism, and progressive politics in popular media. This reactionary movement coincided with and was fueled by Gamergate.

The creation of the SJW allows people to speak in broad generalizations. The ambiguous meaning of the term means that anyone vaguely liberal can be called an SJW. The term implies uniformity. It implies that everyone who is an SJW agrees with each other and is deliberately conspiring to ruin popular media. SJWs are simply not that organized. Even leftists have used the term "SJW" pejoratively to mean someone who too readily antagonizes people or does not actually understand the politics they profess, although others have tried to reclaim the term and make it mean something positive.

Massanari and Chess analyze the history, meaning, and use of the term in “Attack of the 50-Foot Social Justice Warrior: The Discursive Construction of SJW Memes as the Monstrous Feminine.” In that article, they write "the SJW is both a warrior and harmless; it is both a disease and lacking in the ability to sustain itself with logic; it is both monstrous and toothless." Essentially, the term is full of contradictions. SJWs are portrayed as fragile and weak, but they are also seen as a constant threat. They are seen as illogical and easily refuted, yet always seem to be gaining ground. All of this makes the SJW the perfect made-up enemy. The battle against SJWs is very low-stakes, as they only seem interested in invading popular movies, but it has enough personal significance that it is easy to rally people against it.

Takeaways and Advice
- Anger and outrage are often weaponized on the internet. Don't get swept up in the chaos.

- People on both sides of the political spectrum can engage in overgeneralization and dehumanization. Be willing to embrace the nuance of a situation.

- Be skeptical of anyone who frequently uses an abstract "they" or some other vague term to describe the opposition without specifying who exactly they are referring to.

- There will always be concerns and different perspectives to take into account, but the problem is almost never that one side is deliberately and maliciously trying to ruin society.

Political Correctness and Cancel Culture
Chow, Kat. “'Politically Correct': The Phrase Has Gone From Wisdom To Weapon.” NPR, 14 December 2016. 

Greenspan, Rachel. "How 'Cancel Culture' Quickly Became One of the Buzziest and Most Controversial Ideas on the Internet." Insider, 6 August 2020. 

Romano, Aja. "Why We Can't Stop Fighting About Cancel Culture." Vox, 25 August 2020. 

Internet Rage
Fleming, Amy. "Why Social Media Makes Us So Angry, And What You Can Do About It." Science Focus, 2 April 2020. 

Stern, Adam. "The Psychology of Internet Rage." Harvard Health Blog, 17 May 2018.