In 2010 Jonah Berger, an expert on social influence and virality at The University of Pennsylvania, examined 7,000 articles that made The New York Times’ most-emailed list. His study revealed that the most accurate indicator of a story going viral was how much anger the article evoked. At the time, Berger’s finding was just an interesting theory that helped explain how information spreads in the digital age. But nearly a decade later, it’s morphed into the cheat code for mobilizing crowds of people online, initiating political movements, and hijacking the vehicles of publicity.
Richard Spencer, a self-proclaimed white supremacist, is one of many right-wing provocateurs along with Ann Coulter, Tomi Lahren, and Milo Yiannoppolis who have not only discovered that cheat code, but turbo-charged it. They understand that the most effective way to give their movements credibility and build a following is to leverage the anger of their anti-audience, which in their case includes everyone from traditional Republicans to socialists.
Richard Spencer doesn’t care that you hate him. He doesn’t care if you call him a racist, a fascist, or a Nazi. And truthfully, he doesn’t care that his college speaking tour was thwarted. He loves it. More importantly, he needs it. His movement is dependent on mainstream society’s outrage and mockery which bolster its credibility. As malicious as Spencer and the alt-right are, they’re smart enough to understand that their power lies not in their actions, but in everyone else’s re-actions: protests, lawsuits, heated Q&A sessions, the list goes on.
This, says media columnist Ryan Holiday, “[is] proof to their followers that they are doing something subversive and meaningful. It gives their followers something to talk about. It imbues the whole movement with a sense of urgency and action—it creates purpose and meaning … [We’re] worried about ‘normalizing’ their behavior when in fact, that’s the one thing they don’t want to happen.”
This leads to a critical point: if the alt-right bases its entire movement on riling up the opposition and manipulating their emotions, wouldn’t it make sense to not publicly broadcast the anger and disgust that emboldens them?
Watch the pattern unfold for yourself: the minute Richard Spencer spews something provocative, the media (along with ourselves) shower him with attention. There was even a barrage of media coverage when he announced the end of his college tour. Nobody can resist indulging in the controversy, and that’s precisely the problem.
Algorithms online don’t discern between support and disgust: shares are shares and replies are replies. All of the chatter, whether negative or positive, creates a where-there’s-smoke-there’s fire phenomenon. Soon enough, people that normally wouldn’t give Spencer the time of day become his most effective publicists. When we mock the alt-right on Twitter or provoke comment sections on Facebook, we’re just as complicit in their rise to prominence as their supporters.
The pattern doesn’t differ offline. When we organize protests or set up “safe spaces,” the intention is, rightly, to denounce and marginalize these disturbing movements. But in reality, these tactics tend to have the opposite effect: they exacerbate the situation and provide the alt-right with material to recruit more followers.
Like a ringmaster dangling meat in front of a lion, Richard Spencer and his comrades spread clips of irate college students to their followers to incentivize aggressive behavior. The alleged resistance is precisely what gives a middle-aged man with zero intellectual accomplishments permission to manipulate you along with journalists who have a fetish for controversy.
History tells us that attempts to ridicule, exploit, and suppress radical groups as a means of promoting peace is counterproductive. Time and time again, these efforts recoil tragically in the face of activists. In order to generate real change, we must see the world as it is, not how we think it should be.
White supremacy is rooted in a deep fear and anxiety that cannot be assuaged by rational arguments. As our world has become increasingly diverse, a subset of white Americans feels disoriented and lost. They don’t understand the direction our society is taking, and experience its slow transformation illogically. As the old system that once offered comfort and familiarity crumbles, they experience a numbing loss of identity and a paralyzing despair. Human beings, when faced with this despair, project their insecurity onto imaginary enemies. And in this case, that despair has manifested itself in the white supremacist movement.
To lecture a white supremacist on the values of diversity, equality, and justice only fans the flames of their extremism. By the time we’ve exhausted ourselves with futile arguments, it’s too late: the articles have been written, the social media chatter has escalated, and the mainstream news networks have given air time to neo-Nazis.
We made the alt-right real. Not Russia, not trolls on Reddit, not the Trump Administration, but decent people with morals that couldn’t resist engaging with trolls. We’ve failed to heed the 3,000-year-old warning in the book of Proverbs: “Don’t answer to the arguments of fools, lest you become as foolish as they are.”
In an interview with The Atlantic, Richard Spencer admitted that he doesn’t believe bad publicity exists. If that’s the case, how can he be defeated? The only option is to give him no publicity. The New York Times isn’t going to write a feature story about something that nobody’s talking about.
Picture the average person: they probably wouldn’t know about people like Richard Spencer if it weren’t for mainstream media coverage. But to our detriment, professional journalists made a conscious choice to publicize these figures with puff pieces like this, this, and this when they should have implemented the editorial judgement that we deserve.
We cannot rely on public shaming to derail alt-right. It will fail miserably. In order to escape the hole we’ve dug ourselves into, we’ll need to get more creative.
If you really want to defy the alt-right, if you really want to “resist,” tell them you respect their right to free speech. Tell them you’re willing to have an open dialogue. Be peaceful and empathetic. Do the opposite of what fuels their movement and what propels their media narrative. In other words, be anti-viral.
Richard Spencer and the alt-right don’t fear scathing criticism, liberals, or the mainstream media. They fear obscurity. The day Richard Spencer will be defeated is the day he looks at his phone and sees zero notifications.
If we want to win, we will have to beat them at their own game. When shouts of “Heil Trump” and “White Lives Matter” are met with shouts of “F*** you, Nazis!” and “Die, fascist pigs!” you play the loser’s game. Any semblance of progress quickly evaporates.
“When the debate is over,” said Socrates, “slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
This is why it is my hope that if Richard Spencer does end up speaking at another university, the people that rightly oppose his message will finally realize that retaliating with mockery, condescension, and insults is just as irrational as holding a rally for neo-Nazis.
Dominic Vaiana’s articles, essays, interviews, and book recommendations are sent in his monthly newsletter. All subscribers receive the PDF “11 Immutable Writing Lessons from Legendary Authors.”
click bait
I agree with the premise of your argument: that showering figures of the alt-right with overwhelming attention, albeit negative attention, is what the alt-right thrives on. Richard Spencer, Milo, Tomi Lahren, and Ann Coulter are trolls. They love pissing people off, especially “snowflake” liberals, and they consider the negative, derogatory comments directed at them as evidence that their tactics are working and further assurance to themselves that the left does not value “free speech”. It’s a perverted way to gain popularity while also trying to advance an agenda. Now this is my personal opinion but I think notion of white supremacy in its relationship to the alt right is a little more complex . White supremacy within the US is a system that was adopted from the internalized belief that White is “pure”and people of color or non-European are inherently inferior and must be “ruled” by their White, “pure” superior counterparts. This perspective was the basis that this country was founded on and the justification for hundreds of years of brutal, inhumane, and disgusting treatment of people of color. The reason the alt-right can even conceptually exist is because this perspective exist but the reason the alt-right and their figures can command so much of our attention, both for reasons of agreement and disagreement, is because the very system of white supremacy is being challenged by rapidly changing demographics. The population of white American citizens has dropped and immigrant population has steadily increased. Large numbers of Asian and Hispanic immigrants coupled with refugees from the Middle East and Africa has dramatically changed what America looks like. There’s only one problem: these peopl do not bring with the system of beliefs that has socialized us native-born American citizens. And as these changes begin to manifest as political power we see a radical reaction, propped up by incorrect and unrealistic ideas of the inferiority of all of these immigrants (if you’re from the Middle East your a terrorist; if you’re from Mexico you’re here illegally…) and the danger they pose on hard-working, law abiding Americans. Add in the powerful tool of social media and the internet and this propaganda can reach millions instantly. First off, if you are still reading this, props to you and thank you for staying with me. But the reason all of that is important and the reason why I think we have to continue publicly denouncing and shaming people who openly push a racist agenda (although I agree that yelling and cussing is not helpful) is to make sure this is not “normalized” although you believe that this is exactly what they want. I must disagree. This is a political struggle, a social battle for power and dominance, and in a country such as the US that is still struggling from the implication of the racial injustices done in the past, but has nonetheless, shown the world that political power can be shared amongst a diverse nation peacefully and democratically (and I say that very loosely as I know of several arguments against that claim), attacks on systems of oppression must be loud and clear in any setting with which the system is being radicalized (I would consider the alt-right radical for the times). For some people that is publishing a 100 page essay on defeating radical ideologies and then for probably many more people that is shouting “F*ck you, fascist!” The alt-right might enjoy this but at least they see that their opponent has strength as well and the more public shame and disconnection we place on the alt-right ideology the more people will be reluctant to embrace their ideas (social desirability theory). Plus, who doesn’t enjoy seeing someone spewing racist bullsh*t called out and told off. Yelling back and forth does not equate to political power and seeing people willing to speak up and speak out against the alt-right and their figures is at the least reassuring that most people are still decent but the real concern lies in voting and who we put into offices of power. I think we are seeing a very focused effort in our current state of affairs to rally and consolidate as much political power (in the form of votes) as possible while appealing to a small base within the country that is willing to court more far right views if it ensures their interests, and in this country, race is a HUGE interest. If we want to beat the alt-right and their ideology we must support and lift up political candidates who reject hate ideology, hate speech, and policy targeting minorities while also holding those same candidates and politicians accountable and to higher standards especially in this social media and technology age. The end. If you made it this far I am impressed and appreciate you giving me your time and attention. Overall good post, and great writing!
Thanks for reading, Larry. I did read your entire response — your insights were great. I always enjoy learning from different perspectives. For the most part, I think we’re in agreement. My main concern, however, is that we mistake anger with action (narcotizing dysfunction). It’s a paradox because we need to speak out against racists, but that’s also what fires up their base. The best solution, as you mentioned, is voting for the right candidates. Regardless, we’re in a tough situation and this article was my way of sorting out my thoughts. By no means do I have the definite solution.
The media system is now built around two things: endless surplus (of time or space) and controversy. The Alt-Right, some on the left, general trolls, and certain politicians have taken advantage of this persistent reality. Time was when the media gave little attention to fringe belief systems, such as the neo-Nazis. They didn’t have room in the newspaper or nightly newscast. Time and space were too precious. News providers also worried about alienating their audiences. Now, not so much. The endless supply of time and space gives oxygen to ideas that were once starved. Additionally, provocateurs leverage cognitive leftovers from our primitive past–fear of the other and our need to make quick decisions–both once necessary for survival. Spencer and his ilk count on the knee-jerk response by the opposition to come out and protest his events. But imagine what would happen if the protesters stayed home and the media ignored these pseudo-events? Spencer would be having a quiet conversation with a couple dozen of his already-converted faithful. It seems like orthodoxy go out and protest what we perceive as wrong ideas, but in this situation, it seems better to simply starve the beast rather than give it attention or energy.