In Defence of the Online Bully

One of the most powerful rhetorical devices ever accidentally developed is the epistle. A message ostensibly intended for one audience, but read by another makes the other feel like an eavesdropper, as if they are accessing secret knowledge, not intended for them and therefore more true, more real than the direct approach. A person might lie to you, but we assume they would not lie to that other person or that other group. We are the spy, learning secrets. This approach bypasses our normal social filters and we learn often more than we intended by its use.

Epistles arent just written letters. They can be overheard conversations, rolling of eyes intended for another audience, a grumbling by a passerby, or road rage. Consider this: Every single time we swear at another driver with our kids in the car, we are teaching them how to drive, and how to avoid wrath. An epistle is every tweet that begins “Dear so & so” and an epistle is every single Facebook post ever, on every wall, in any conversation, in every exchange. Every happy birthday, every like button, and every meme. And just as everything we post is a letter to the world, so also is our silence.

People learn more by inference than by direct knowledge. We keep the things we figure out longer than the things we are told. And, we all infer far more than we realize. So, when my Facebook friend posts a racist meme, all of the friends we have in common, consciously or unconsciously make an inference based on my response or my lack of response. If I were giving this talk, here is where I would pause and stare meaningfully at my audience until it sinks in.

In a Nov. 2017 article for The Washington Post, John Barge writes that in order to change the mind of a conservative they must be made to feel safe. In the now quite famous study Yale researchers asked conservatives to imagine that they were invulnerable to harm and then watched them become more empathetic, more generous, and more liberal. Taking this research into account they suggest that if you want a person to consider a different point of view, be nice to them. Make them feel safe and respected, and heard. If I am talking to one person, in front of me, this is great advice. But the researchers did not consider the power of the epistle.

If, in order to make my point with, for instance, a flat earth proponent, I might first say, “Wow, I honor your experience and opinion. I can see where you might reach this conclusion.” It might be true that this one person feels a little safer and is perhaps more open to opposing points of view. However, an entire audience of unknown size and scope just read my epistle and inferred that a flat earth perspective is something I take seriously. Now think about this with regard to Race, or Equity, or Gender, or foreign policy, or whacko Qanon conspiracy nutjobs. If my high school buddy posts a meme suggesting that African Americans are all on welfare, do I really want to begin my epistle to the world by suggesting that this is valid?

With recent films like “The Social Dilemma” pointing out the insidious power of social media, and how it’s designed to keep us engaged and keep us watching ads, the reason it all works is that it is social. The conventions we have for attending a party or working together as hunter-gathers just don’t work online. They are counterproductive. When we are nice to a klansman in real life we might convert him/her. When we are nice to a klansman online we have just written an epistle to the world that being a klansman is cool.

My friends who know me as a kind and generous man are often shocked and made to feel extremely uncomfortable by the things I write on social media. I can be cutting, and emotionally cruel. For people who believe “Socialism” means soviet style prison re-education camps and violent suppression of rights I openly accuse of “profound and pitiable ignorance” and I suggest shame should prevent them from being seen or heard in public. People who read my epistle feel very uncomfortable, they feel sorry for my target. That is my goal. Unless it is in person and I can make them feel safe and spend weeks asking gently leading questions, the person I am actually addressing is beyond my reach. They will not be convinced of anything online. But the people who read the message are subject to the power of the epistle.

People need to understand that online is not in person. They are not the same. Social media is destroying us because we can’t tell the difference and because by honoring the absurd to propagate the unthinkable. By protecting aunt Sally’s feelings online we are supporting and bolstering her insanity.

For an audience of everyone.

Yes, I’m a troll, a Facebook bully, a mean tweeter. Frankly, you need to be one too.