Comment by treehau5 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by treehau5 | Hacker News Reader

We live in the "call out culture" and, ironically, it's how Donald Trump gained so much momentum. People have reacted to this by staying silent instead of explicitly stating their views publicly and creating conversations, opportunities for learning, and ideation.

In this Brown Political review article [0], the author states

> Furthermore, calling-out non-influential figures and handing them the spotlight in the process gives other individuals incentive to make controversial statements of their own. In other words, if someone is desperate enough for attention, even if it’s negative, they might see that saying or doing something blatantly hateful can garner the publicity they crave. It’s the same concept the has boosted Trump and Carson campaigns (to different levels of effectiveness) this election cycle; that is, using controversy and outrage to get their names out there and increase their visibility in the media and public eye.

There is a good study of a case of a (now) popular misogynistic and homophobic YouTube user that actually tripled his viewership as a result of protests on social media about him holding a meeting in their town.

I personally do not "fear" callout culture, but I also realize that the things I put out there on the internet have consequences that I would rather avoid. And like the article states, I am in no position of power.

[0]: http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/05/26760/

"We live in the "call out culture" and, ironically, it's how Donald Trump gained so much momentum. People have reacted to this by staying silent instead of explicitly stating their views publicly and creating conversations, opportunities for learning, and ideation."

Of course, let's also not forget that there is a culture that has made a point of shouting down contrarian or critical viewpoints when a discussion could be initiated.

Worried that perhaps some vaccinations are unnecessary? You're a stupid anti-vaxxer.

Critical of environmental science methodology? You're a climate change denier (and probably in the pocket of Big Oil).

Not a fan of how Black Lives Matter conducts some of their protests, or perhaps you think that using ID to combat potential voter fraud is a valid idea? You're a racist.

Not a supporter of a specific presidential candidate? Well, it's probably because you're a misogynist...and there's a good chance you're rather deplorable as well.

That's a good part of why people have stayed silent: they're demonized before a conversation can begin. It's not necessarily because they didn't want to have a conversation.

Willing to negotiate on immigration? You're "pandering in the name of a solution" and your bill "effectively wipes out the Republican Party."

There's a difference between " shouting down contrarian or critical viewpoints when a discussion could be initiated" and "shouting down people who are rehashing tired old arguments that looks exactly the same as the arguments put forth by people who are already known to be operating in bad faith"

I would counter that a) perhaps some parties don't know that they're using "tired old arguments" (if it is new to them) and b) the "bad faith" may be assumed, rather than known.

If you're being shouted down, regardless of why one party thinks you should be shouted down, your worldview and opinion of the opposite party will be strongly affected.

> It’s the same concept the has boosted Trump and Carson campaigns

I don't think its a coincidence that Donald Trump, a name half of America recognized before the election, won the election while Ben Carson, an unknown before the election, didn't make it past the primaries and received less than 3% of republican vote.

And if I'm right, this completely contradicts your article's thesis: Trump got the attention because he was already famous and known, not what he was saying. The general election also supports this.

It's not the overarching thesis of the paper, but expanding on one of the points it is trying to make about the dangers of call-out culture with a reliable conjecture about the rise of Trump. The article states it worked to varying levels of effectiveness for Trump and Carson. Carson received more recognition than he ever had prior to riding the coat-tails of this call out culture, and playing the contrarian (in my opinion). You can look at it this way: a neurosurgeon with no political experience and a murky past won 9% of the republican primaries, ahead of establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum. The mistake was placing his name next to Trump when comparing the effectiveness of this phenomena, because Trump is the ultimate representation, but it was extremely effective for Carson as well.

I don't see why it's ironic. Call out culture has been a staple of the right for decades now, which is not to say it doesn't happen on the left as well. RINO dates back to the 90s, and that's just the most recent version.

Call out culture's effect is multiplied by social media. And I am not sure that it was the norm in the 90s. Most people were raised with the values that you minded your own business, often too far that way.

Well, ole Jim Bob got to drinkin' and Sally done got a black eye again

Now honey you know better than to going around and snoopin' in other people's business

That was the culture up until lately, and even if it was present earlier, it certainly didn't have the consequences (good or bad) as it does now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com