Founder/CEO New Knowledge, co-host of @PartiallyD, data scientist and researcher of violent extremism.
9 hrs ago10 min read
Twitter profile photos from extremist alt-right accounts
The Radical Right and the Threat of Violence
Earlier this week I shared a story on Twitter about anti-Semitism in Donald Trump’s campaign. The tweet was picked up by a prominent “alt-right” personality, and within a few minutes dozens of other white supremacists rallied to attack me, defend their candidate, and outline their vision for a society free of “Jewish control.”
While this little eruption might have been noteworthy nine months ago, swarms of unapologetic racists are now commonplace on social media. Formerly relegated to the fringes of society, the alt-right is now part of the political mainstream. This modern incarnation of the white nationalist movement, made up of neo-Nazis and white separatists, enjoyed the national spotlight recently as Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of openly campaigning for their support. Many in the mediahave rightlyexpressed concern that a major party candidate seems to pander (or at least “dog whistle”) to the far right fringe. Indeed, Trump has many ties to white supremacists on social media, and prominent white nationalists like former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke are strongly supportive of the Trump campaign. But the truth is that, while the influence of this type of bigotry on our political process is alarming, the real threat posed by the alt-right goes far beyond any candidate’s unsavory political base.
The growing size and increasing radicalization of the white nationalist movement are indicators of a much more dangerous trend. With its vulnerable population, extremist ideology, and capacity for violence, the alt-right is a breeding ground for terrorism.
Terrorism, and the Path to Radicalization
Since the rise of ISIS, researchers, law enforcement, and the intelligence community have tried to understand how the group succeeds in inspiring people around the world to commit so-called “lone wolf” attacks, or travel to Syria to join their makeshift caliphate. This process, in which seemingly normal people become intoxicated with extremist ideology and are molded into terrorists, is often referred to as the “path to radicalization,” and it’s now well understood.
Many have followed this path, from different countries, and social classes, but they’re linked by common vulnerabilities — each feel ostracized from society, believe themselves to be victimized, and are attracted to violence. ISIS recruiters and propagandists exploit these vulnerabilities with narratives of strength and warmth, simultaneously empathizing with the alienated and disaffected while also promising power and belonging through righteous violence against their oppressors. ISIS sells potential recruits on the idea that they can fight injustice and find honor by taking back what is rightfully theirs.
An ISIS recruiting video. Warning: contains graphic footage.
This is not to say that all Donald Trump supporters are racist, or that all rural white voters are extremists — in fact that is almost certainly not the case. However it’s not hard to see why these communities feel ostracized, disempowered, and angry.
Fortunately current white nationalist leaders like David Duke and William Johnson are ineffective, and have largely failed to inspire the kind of unity and commitment that propels ISIS supporters to large-scale terrorist attacks, but communities infected by the alt-right are fertile ground in which extremism can, and has taken root.
And while racism is not the same thing as radical extremism, former radical Islamists have drawn direct ties between the ISIS brand of religious extremism and racism, and there are clear parallels between the radicalization process of jihadist extremists and the growing extremism of the far right in the United States. Put bluntly in this VICE documentary about the Klu Klux Klan in Mississippi, Steve Howard, the local KKK chapter’s Imperial Wizard, says:
“In some ways we can relate to Islamic extremists, just like we are Christian extremists, because they’re fighting a holy war and so are we.”
Growing Evidence on Social Media
Like ISIS, the alt-right is active on social media. In a recent research paper measuring alt-right on Twitter, J.M. Berger found a 600% increase in followers for prominent white nationalist accounts, even as ISIS activity has dramatically declined.
There are many factions within the alt-right, but in examining these white nationalists on social media, it’s clear there are two primary groups: garden variety racists, who complain about mixed-race couples, are proud of their Scots-Irish heritage, and use hashtags like “#WhiteWomenAreMagic,” and violent extremists, who call for genocide against Jews, the killing of Muslims and African-Americans, and even threaten to lynch President Obama.
These are not idle threats, nor is this a small fringe group, as many in the media on both the leftand right would understandably like to believe.
Instead of chasing these extremists and their sympathizers back into the shadows, the recent increase in attention has only emboldened the alt-right. Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance, openly cheered Hillary Clinton’s attacks on the group. David Duke mentioned Donald Trump as his inspiration for seeking a Senate seat in Louisiana, while Duke’s former organization, the KKK, is openly recruiting in Indiana, New York, and California. Meanwhile in Houston, an armed group of confederate-flag waiving white nationalists blockaded offices of the local NAACP chapter.
Measuring the Alt-Right’s Radicalization
Disturbingly, the social media activity of these hate groups suggests that the threat of violence is increasing. White nationalists’ online presence continues to grow, and after surveying a network of over 27,000 Nazi apologists, KKK members, and separatists, it’s clear that these groups are becoming measurably more radicalized every month.
Even though they typically hide their real identities behind the anonymity afforded by social media, alt-right Twitter users nevertheless clearly communicate their political affiliations. Using machine-learning algorithms to interpret the language in Twitter profile descriptions, and computer vision algorithms to identify pro-Nazi symbols in profile avatars, my colleagues at New Knowledge and I identified over 3,500 radical extremists amongst the larger network of 27,000 accounts that are associated with the alt-right.
Many hundreds of users display the swastika, while others choose alternative symbols associated with hate groups, such as the Celtic cross, Iron cross, and insignia of the Nazi paramilitary group, Schutzstaffel, also known as the SS.
Swastikas dedicated by our computer vision algorithm, discovered in the alt-right network on Twitter
Many others explicitly declared their allegiance to neo-Nazi and white separatist movements in the text of their profiles by proclaiming “white pride,” or explicitly identifying themselves as “white nationalists.” Almost everyone in the alt-right network is an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of Donald Trump, through the core group of extremists is more likely to mention their race, white nationalism, and national socialism than any presidential candidate.
On the left, words found most often in the larger network of alt-right Twitter profiles. On the right, words found most often in white extremist profiles.
Most importantly, analyzing the tweets of this core group of 3,500 extremists reveals a warped, dangerous worldview that openly advocates for murder and genocide.
Using recent advances in machine-assisted text analysis, we then quantified this racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and violent perspective based on the context in which authors use relevant keywords. For example, in typical English, like a mainstream newspaper article, the word “Jewish” is statistically similar to words like “Muslim” and “Christian.” Meaning that mainstream authors usually rely on the word “Jewish” to describe someone or something religious.
On the contrary, in tweets by white extremists, the word “Jewish” is used in a totally different context, where it is statistically similar to words like “communist,” “homosexual,” “anti-white,” and “satanic.”
White extremists are therefore more likely to use the word “Jewish” to signify something they hate, rather than as a religious description. This is no surprise, but it provides an objective metric for understanding how the white extremist perspective diverges from the mainstream.
Imagine two poles at either end of a spectrum that spans from the moderate middle to the potentially violent, radicalized fringe — this metric places a community somewhere on that spectrum. It’s a kind of radicalization score, and those who score highly are ideologically similar to the most violent, dangerous alt-right extremists on Twitter.
When the radicalization score is applied to tweets from the broader alt-right network, it’s clear that the entire white nationalist community is embracing an increasingly extreme ideology. The social media content of white nationalists in July was 25% more radicalized than it was in January, and the rate of radicalization is increasing exponentially.
The increasingly radicalized rhetoric of the alt-right on Twitter, measured.
Of course the alt-right is not a single group, but is comprised of many communities, joined by their shared belief in white supremacy. As this graphic shows, small factions are scattered across the larger white nationalist network.
27,000 Alt-Right supporters on Twitter
Some communities, like the “#BlueHand” movement, relentlessly and aggressively promote Islamaphobia, whereas other communities rail against diversity, which they describe as “#WhiteGenocide.” Still other communities align themselves with neo-Nazis and engage is Holocaust denial — largely focused on a recent pro-Hitler documentary called The Greatest Story Never Told — while some instead choose the white supremacist groups with roots in the United States like the Klu Klux Klan. There is plenty of overlap between these communities, and almost everyone in the alt-right revels in bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the idea that President Obama founded ISIS — a theory recently made popular by Donald Trump — or that Black Lives Matter activists are terrorists.
Regardless of what type of white nationalism the individual communities prefer, almost all of them show signs of adopting the kinds of dangerous, radical ideologies.
Looking more closely at one of these communities in particular, it’s possible to see the journey from casual racism to a more extremist typically associated with violence.
An Alt-Right community on the path to radicalization
This community of 5,225 users is tightly clustered inside the larger network, indicating a high degree of communication between its members. The tweets published by members of this community indicate a perspective that is 63% radicalized, and that has become increasingly radicalized over time.
Community radicalization over time
A closer look at the individual tweets published by members of this group in January, and then in July, illustrates this trend. In January, the word “Jewish” hardly appears. When it does, the context reveals an undercurrent of casual, but not aggressive, racism.
By July, the tone has changed. The word “Jewish” appears in tweets from hundreds of different accounts, and its usage implies a belief in large-scale conspiracy, racial antagonism, and even explicit support for Adolf Hitler.
Now, in September, the march toward radicalization shows no signs of stopping, as campaign rhetoric intensifies during the last leg of a polarizing presidential election.
Dark Times Ahead
The extremist alt-right is a barrel of gunpowder, waiting for someone to light a match.
It’s also not going anywhere. The radical alt-right has so far failed to engender the kind of devotion seen in supporters of other extremist groups, but Donald Trump and his campaign have normalized the hate and conspiracy theories that fuel this movement. His rhetoric has emboldened the alt-right, and this election cycle has dramatically elevated its visibility. The economic and social conditions that led to the decline of rural white communities aren’t changing anytime soon, and as the number of alt-right converts grows at an alarming rate, these groups seem increasingly inclined to violent rhetoric and radicalized ideology.
It’s only a matter of time before more charismatic and ruthless leaders replace uninspiring figures like David Duke and Jared Taylor, harness this increased capacity for violence, and elevate the radicalized alt-right from a marginalized hate group to full-blown terrorism.
Trump University and Donald Trump were under threat of investigation in Florida and Texas. Trump, who bragged, “I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me” did exactly that:
Trump made this substantial contribution to Bondi at just the moment when her office was evaluating whether to bring legal action against Trump’s ‘Trump University’ real estate seminar scam. Indeed, Bondi admits she reached out to Trump to solicit the contribution just as the decision was on her desk. She eventually declined to take legal action against Trump, overruling the recommendations of career investigators.
A mounting legal case was also underway in Texas, by career investigators under then-Attorney General and now Governor Greg Abbott. Abbott overruled the investigator’s recommendation for legal action. Shortly thereafter Abbott got $35,000 from Trump. In this case Trump at least made the contribution without the commingling of nonprofit funds that got them in trouble in Florida.
It’s recently come to light that these donations (bribes) were paid out of the Trump Foundation. Whether that was through deliberate intent or incompetence is immaterial, because this is an actual, real, meaningful scandal with two — two! — smoking guns. This is exactly the sort of thing that the New York Times, CNN, and all the biggest names in journalism are looking for as they relentlessly go after the Clinton Foundation, as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There is nothing to be uncovered there, because there is no “there” there. … but there is almost complete and utter silence about Trump’s two successful efforts to buy off politicians — and not just politicians, but the Attorneys General of two different states!
The Times uniquely, though only as a leading example for the rest of the national press, has a decades’ long history of being lead around by rightwing opposition researchers into dead ends which amount to journalistic comedy — especially when it comes to the Clintons. But here, while all this is happening we have a real live specimen example of direct political and prosecutorial corruption, misuse of a 501c3 nonprofit and various efforts to conceal this corruption and the underlying corruption of Trump’s ‘Trump University’ real estate seminar scam. It’s all there — lightly reported here and there — but largely ignored.
The story the media wants to write about the Clintons exists, but it looks more and more like it won’t be written, because it’s about Trump. I don’t think this is because the media is in the tank for either candidate, but is because there is a narrative: Trump’s a buffoon and dog bites man, while Clintons are just so damn suspicious and there’s a cloud over everything they do and whether it’s actually questionable or not, it sure has the appearance of being unethical.
This isn’t really a horserace election, because even though we have a flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton, we have an absolute psychopath in Donald Trump. (Ezra Klein: “Crack open the polls, and they look even worse for Trump than the top-line results. That’s because Trump still is viewed as unfit for office on crucial metrics by big majorities of Americans.”) That’s a problem for cable news, because cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.
It’s working, though. Since AP’s story broke, and the simple narrative it created was repeated all over the place, the race tightened.
Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly that it’s a very good thing for media to heavily scrutinize anyone who wants to be president. I will add that anyone who wants to be president should welcome that scrutiny, because they are asking voters in America to invest a great deal of power and trust in them.
My friend John Rogers said what I’d been trying to say for days, before I wrote this post.
The problem here is not just that our national political media and cable networks are substituting lazy both sideism for actual reporting, it’s that these media organizations, who we rely upon to inform us, are ignoring a real scandal that goes to the heart of not just who Donald Trump is, but how massively corrupted our pay-for-play political system is, and is instead focused like a laser on chasing down literally anything that has the appearance of malfeasance in Hillary Clinton’s life, however thin it may be.
AP accused The Clinton Foundation of participating in pay-for-play quid pro quo corruption, even though the facts don’t support it. Donald Trump and his foundation have openly, brazenly, and proudly engaged in exactly the kind of conduct AP was trying to desperately to prove in its story, and we have yet to hear anything about it.
Next Story — Create a society where women get equal justice
Currently Reading - Create a society where women get equal justice
Three months ago, former Stanford student Brock Turner was convicted on three counts of sexual felony assault, for crimes he committed against an intoxicated and unconscious woman next to a dumpster outside a frat party.
Today, he is being released from Santa Clara County Jail after serving just half of his six-month sentence.
While state law prescribes a minimum of two years in state prison for convictions like Turner’s, Judge Aaron Persky contended that a “prison sentence would have a severe impact” on the 20-year-old, who was attending Stanford on a swimming scholarship and had no prior criminal record.
So Judge Persky opted for what legal experts subsequently described as “an unusually lenient” six-month sentence.
The low impact of this lenient sentence has been lowered even further because Turner is getting time off for good behavior. For casually assaulting a passed-out woman he’d crossed paths with at a party, Turner spent 92 days in jail.
This woefully unjust sentence sends a powerful message about how our culture systematically discounts and excuses sexual violence against women. To counteract that message, we must send equally powerful messages that signal our demand for reform.
Judge Persky was supposed to be up for election this year. Because no challengers filed to run against him before a deadline passed in March — i.e., before he administered Turner’s low-impact sentence — he started a new six-year term in early June.
The campaign to recall Judge Persky can officially begin collecting signatures next year — and when they collect approximately 80,000 signatures from registered voters in Santa Clara County, a special recall election will be held in November 2017.
All told, the recall effort’s organizers anticipate that it will cost $1 million to collect the necessary signatures and mount a campaign that results in victory. That’s why supporters of the initiative have organized a crowdfunding campaign on Crowdpac.com, and why I’m contributing to this cause.
As the Sacramento Bee noted in June 2016, Judge Persky promised citizens in 2002 that he would be “fair, honest, and dedicated to justice for all” if they elected him.
But in what way was he being dedicated to justice for the woman whom Turner assaulted, and sexual assault victims in general, when he clearly showed greater concern for Turner’s wellbeing than he did for the incident’s victim?
In placing so much emphasis on the “severe impact” a lengthier sentence might have on Turner, Judge Persky implicitly signaled his disregard for the impact Turner’s actions had on the woman he assaulted. And yet this woman had expressed that impact with devastating candor in a statement she read at Turner’s sentencing hearing.
“You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she told Turner.
She spoke of the fear she feels when attending social events or even just walking somewhere at night, and how undermining it is to “move through life always guarded, ready to defend myself, ready to be angry.”
And she captured, with great clarity, the larger cultural implications of what a lenient sentence would signal: “The probation officer’s recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft timeout, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, an insult to me and all women. It gives the message that a stranger can be inside you without proper consent and he will receive less than what has been defined as the minimum sentence.”
As the woman’s statement alludes, the Santa Clara County Probation Department recommended a sentence of a year or less in county jail for Turner — a halving of what state laws prescribes as a minimum sentence and another indication that the problem of discounting sexual violence toward women is systemic.
Judge Persky had an opportunity here to counteract the Probation Department’s questionable guidance — and impose a sentence more appropriate to the crime that had been committed.
Instead, in the face of the woman’s testimony, Judge Persky did exactly what she feared he might. He “quietly excused” Brock Turner with a six-month sentence that ultimately manifested as 92 days in jail.
If we truly want to create a legal system that brings justice to all — a system that recognizes that physically assaulting an unconscious human being is not some form of sexual shoplifting, a petty misdemeanor where a 90-day sentence is adequate — then we must not quietly excuse Judge Persky.
Giving citizens of Santa Clara County an opportunity to hold Judge Persky accountable for his sentencing decision is a necessary first step toward larger systemic reform. That’s why I’m supporting this recall effort, and why I hope others will join me in this effort.
Next Story — Dear Progressive Movement, We Have a Problem
Currently Reading - Dear Progressive Movement, We Have a Problem
The progressive movement has a sexual harassment problem, and we desperately need to talk about it.
On August 19th, Holly Fussell came forward with her story about reporting sexual harassment to former FL-09 congressional candidate, Susannah Randolph. After reporting the harassment, Fussell was raped by the same man she had reported for harassment.
I believe survivors, but this part of her story isn’t true.
Coming forward in this way is not the right way to get justice.
How do you know she wasn’t paid by the opponent?
Why do you think this story isn’t getting local pickup? It’s filled with holes.
These are things that we have heard from some members, staffers, and leaders — both men and women — in the progressive movement after hearing Fussell’s accounts.
These are deeply problematic statements. Here’s why:
Survivors often experience “secondary victimization,” in which they face cultural, social, and economic backlash for reporting sexual harassment or assault. These types of retaliation manifest in many ways for survivors, such as being fired from work or silenced by a supervisor, or by being bullied, shamed, and victim-blamed by peers. These obstacles make coming forward all the more difficult, and often lead to feelings of guilt, self-doubt, shame and silence. All of this is made worse by the fact that most survivors of sexual assault know that less than 3% of rapists have ever seen a day in prison.
To be clear, false accusations of rape are exceedingly rare. Progressives must not only believe survivors like Fussell, who are brave enough to step forward despite high costs to their mental health and reputation, but also trust and support them.
The moment Fussell’s piece began circulating among progressive circles, an assortment of excuses were made to blame her. These preposterous claims, which seem to have come straight from the Rape Culture 101 Playbook, were being parroted by so-called progressive allies of sexual assault survivors. Most disappointingly, there was (and is) a deep unwillingness to take Fussell’s story seriously and hold Randolph accountable for the workplace sexual harassment that happened under her watch. Many progressive groups that supported Randolph were more concerned with defending Randolph than standing with a survivor of sexual violence.
Susannah Randolph was by far the stronger candidate than her opponents when it comes to progressive policy issues, but positions on issues are not enough. If we want to build a truly progressive society, we must hold candidates like Randolph accountable for their proclaimed values. Progressive candidates who actually demonstrate just how tightly they hold their professed values and what it means to live by them are stronger candidates.
Time and time again, members of the progressive community have been on the right side of history. With our track record of fighting for the most marginalized populations and communities, it is especially troubling to hear progressive leaders use rhetoric rooted in rape culture and to see them handle allegations of sexual harm by doubting survivors.
We do ourselves no favors by discrediting survivors like Holly Fussell. When we turn our backs on one survivor, we turn our backs on survivors everywhere. As progressive candidates, organizers, activists, and members of the media, we can and must do better.
Next Story — Hillary Clinton, The Alt-Right, And Me
Currently Reading - Hillary Clinton, The Alt-Right, And Me
Feminism, sex, bros. Featured contributor @femsplain, social at @TEDTalks. https://ellacydawson.wordpress.com/
Aug 299 min read
Hillary Clinton, The Alt-Right, And Me
I had no idea how truly dangerous the Alt-Right was, or that it even existed, until it discovered me.
I expected a backlash when I began writing a blog about what it’s like to live with genital herpes. Speaking from personal experience about a taboo topic like sexually transmitted infections was never going to be easy, and I prepared myself to face judgment from strangers online. Social mores about sex may be changing, but women who frankly discuss their sexuality — and their feminism — meet pushback from an online culture of outrage and shame. What I could not have anticipated in my wildest nightmare was becoming a favorite target of the Alt-Right.
It is difficult to explain the loose web of sexist trolls and “conservative provocateurs” that compose the Alt-Right to someone who isn’t immersed in Internet culture. There are the anti-establishment radicals who hate Paul Ryan, the anti-Islam YouTube vloggers who pushed hard for Brexit, and the Twitter users who create memes like #TheTriggering to mock social justice activists. The Alt-Right also overlaps with groups like Men’s Rights Activists, who are convinced matriarchy is oppressing them on a global scale, and the bizarre online hate mob that is GamerGate. Conversations about these men — because they are almost always men, and they are almost always white — are usually dismissive. We call them “trolls,” implying they’re the dimwitted underworld denizens of the Internet. As long as they stay in unread comment sections, what risk do they pose to the rest of us?
I had no idea how truly dangerous the Alt-Right was, or that it even existed, until it discovered me.
In retrospect, this was inevitable. My work consists of raising awareness of STI stigma and how disproportionate it is to the reality of living with conditions like genital herpes. I work at the margins of body-positive feminism: STI stigma is still not recognized as a credible feminist issue by much of the community. It’s a conversation that is only just starting, and it’s one that I am proud to have contributed to. As a result, my activism still seems bizarre before people pay attention to what I’m saying — even the most progressive souls sometimes guffaw at the idea that people with herpes are discriminated against. STIs are seen as a consequence of personal choices, and herpes lacks the visibility of viruses like HIV. As a result, herpes is even less understood by the general public despite how common and harmless it truly is.
To the Alt-Right, I’m a goldmine of entertainment. What a stupid feminist, wanting the social acceptance of herpes! Get a real problem, and don’t make such terrible life choices, you disgusting slut. YouTube commenters have told me to do the world a favor and kill myself. Bloggers have written lengthy posts about how my liberal education contributed to my downfall of virtue. Strangers on Twitter have called me every derogatory term you can imagine. But that’s just an average day as a woman on the Internet. That’s nothing compared to the targeted harassment campaigns that are the fun and games of the Alt-Right.
For the leaders of the Alt-Right, mocking feminists is the best way to entertain your loyal followers.
Over the last two years, I’ve become something of an Alt-right meme. “Free speech activist” Mike Cernovich has tweeted about me at least three times to his 91,000 Twitter followers, each mention resulting in a wave of sickening, abusive tweets sent directly to my cell phone. Even if Mike’s tweets weren’t all that upsetting (a five-year-old could come up with something better than “Ugly and has herpes”), the ones his followers sent me were pretty scarring. Let’s just say that they’re fond of the c-word.
When I created an STD Awareness Month campaign called #ShoutYourStatus with some of my friends earlier this year, it caught the eye of the editor at large of InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson. He recorded a five-minute YouTube video screaming about how vile we were. “I don’t think we should be that surprised that feminists are bragging about their STDs,” Watson concludes. “After all, they’re so fat and ugly, the mere fact that they’re having any kind of sex at all is a massive achievement.”
This video has been viewed 271,923 times. His fans have sent me hundreds of messages on Twitter, Facebook and my website to tell me that I’m a, well, insert the sexist slur of your choice here.
It may be hard to understand what receiving this level of harassment is like for someone who has never experienced it. Imagine getting 200 text messages in ten minutes telling you that you are worthless in the most inventive, lurid way possible. Now make that 48 hours. Now add the possibility that they might hack your email, distribute personal photos, call your employer, and release personal information like your address, phone number, social security number, the names of your family members, and so on. As an example, feminist writer Jessica Valenti quit social media this year because her five-year-old daughter received a rape and death threat.
Yeah, we’re not playing around here.
I hit Peak Harassment when Milo Yiannopoulos himself retweeted a screenshot of one of my #ShoutYourStatus tweets. The darling of Breitbart, Yiannopoulos has been responsible for too many targeted harassment campaigns to count. The most recent was against Leslie Jones, one of the stars of Ghostbusters. What happened went like this: Yiannopoulos wrote a nasty review of the movie, delighting in his own inventive cruelty, and Breitbart readers then bombarded Jones on Twitter with hatred until she left the site temporarily. The harassment campaign resulted in Yiannopoulos finally — FINALLY — being banned from Twitter permanently. But the horror doesn’t end there: Jones’s website was recently hacked, and her personal photos and information were posted publicly. What did Jones do to deserve this? She starred in a movie, and she is a black woman. That’s about it.
Visiting Breitbart’s website is like staring into the looking glass: it reflects an angry worldview with its own distorted version of reality. When I finally wound up on Breitbart myself, I got off easy. A short piece was written about the #ShoutYourStatus campaign titled “FEMINISTS: IT’S A ‘PRIVILEGE’ TO HAVE A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE,” but my name was not mentioned and no tweets of mine were included. At that point I had already received so much harassment from Paul Joseph Watson’s YouTube video that I had locked my Twitter account, effectively preventing Breitbart’s writers from embedding them in the post. Breitbart did include Watson’s video, a link to an interview I’d done with Salon, and the tweets of my friends. The short article poured gasoline on the flames of the harassment campaign already in full swing. I was absolutely petrified.
In the midst of this viral torment, I was scheduled to give a TEDx talk on herpes stigma. I spent most of that week hiding under my bed on strong anxiety medication, and I came very close to canceling. I was only able to push through my panic because I knew that the only thing these men wanted was for me to cave. They hated me for having a voice and for striving to create a better world that didn’t fit their bigoted utopia. The only way to win was to keep going.
I gave the talk, but the damage had been done. I had what I can only describe as a nervous breakdown in slow motion. I was exhausted, angry, terrified and cynical. Few people could empathize with how the daily assault of abusive tweets, emails and comments had worn on my nerves like sandpaper. Even the best-intentioned friends told me to just stop caring about what some random, pathetic fringe of wackos said about me on the Internet.
I took a long break from herpes activism and turned my attention to the election. Imagine my surprise when the harassment I’d been struggling to endure began to bubble up into the political mainstream. Donald Trump clinched the nomination, with Milo Yiannopoulos throwing a rowdy party at the RNC to celebrate. Fringe conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton spilled over from Breitbart and InfoWars onto mainstream media. And then in a bizarre not-quite pivot, Donald Trump hired Steve Bannon, former executive chairman of Breitbart News, to be his campaign CEO.
Breitbart and Trump are a match made in heaven. Trump’s racist comments about Mexicans during his announcement speech were absurd to political commentators at the time, but no activist who spends five minutes on Twitter was surprised. He echoes years of anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist and racist Internet commentary.
Trump’s rhetoric is the natural culmination of increasingly normalized, all-caps violence.
Donald Trump emboldens the Alt-Right as he borrows their language and hires their leaders. The tone on the Internet has gotten worse, not better, since he declared his candidacy last year. Even if he loses the election, Trump has done lasting damage by empowering hate groups that conflate voicing their prejudiced views with “protecting free speech.”
The Alt-Right claims to be a trendy new generation of conservatism, pushing boundaries and buttons in response to political correctness and liberal oversensitivity. Really, it’s a hipster rebranding of white supremacy, misogyny and bigotry for the digital era. We may want to believe it’s just the Internet, just the usual harmless roar of haters and pre-teen boys blowing off steam online. But that ignores the massive chilling effect the Alt-Right has on women, people of color, non-binary and LGBTQ folks who have been intimidated into going quiet. There is a war happening online every single day, and most are unaware it exists.
I’ve been a Hillary Clinton supporter for years now, but the importance of her campaign for President didn’t hit home with me until I watched her speech last week in Reno. I know so many writers who are terrified to even mention Breitbart by name online because we so often pay for it. There Hillary was, literally reading Breitbart headlines from the podium as the audience gasped. She was unafraid of the Alt-Right’s vulgar, distorted conspiracy theories, their character assassinations, their sexist photoshopped memes. And despite her fearlessness, she was able to recognize their danger without validating their ideology.
I have never seen a politician understand the danger of the Alt-Right. It made me sad that a fringe hate community has become so central to American politics that a presidential candidate has to make a speech about them. But it also filled me with genuine, raw hope for the first time since I became an activist. Finally, someone took the threat of the Alt-Right seriously. And it could only be Hillary, who has experienced their loathing for decades, long before Twitter even existed. She reminds me of myself, or of the woman I hope to become: resilient in the face of opposition, unbroken by decades of sexist attacks and restrictive stereotypes. Her candidacy is proof that the Alt-Right will ultimately fail. There is no amount of screaming and threatening that can halt progress.
A woman will sit in the Oval Office very soon, and she will be incredible.
If I could say anything to Hillary Clinton, it would be thank you. Thank you for making me feel less alone in this daily battle against hatred online. Thank you for never wavering in your pursuit of the full equality of women. Thank you for speaking, no matter how much talking heads criticize your tone of voice. Thank you for pushing this country forward, and thank you for taking us with you. I’m with you.
The Alt-Right’s time is over. It’s our turn now.
Sign up to continue reading what matters most to you