Your point about tone being set top-down (by the high-status, or by inertia in the established community) seems to me to explain why we there are so many genuinely vicious people among netizens who talk rationally and honestly about differences in populations (essentially anti-PC) - even beyond what you’d expect in that they’re rebelling against an explicit “be nice” policy that most people assent to.
I’m not sure about the connection you’re making. Is it combining my points that tone is set from the top, and people are apt to overshoot their prejudices beyond their evidence?
I think it’s complicated. Some of it probably is animus, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some of it isn’t about the specific topic so much as resentment at having the rules changed with no acknowledgement made that rule changes have costs for those who are obeying them.
Your point about tone being set top-down (by the high-status, or by inertia in the established community) seems to me to explain why we there are so many genuinely vicious people among netizens who talk rationally and honestly about differences in populations (essentially anti-PC) - even beyond what you’d expect in that they’re rebelling against an explicit “be nice” policy that most people assent to.
I’m not sure about the connection you’re making. Is it combining my points that tone is set from the top, and people are apt to overshoot their prejudices beyond their evidence?
My old theory about the nastiness of some anti-PC reactionaries was that they came to their view out of some animus.
Your suggestion that communities’ tones may be determined by that of a small number of incumbents serves as an alternative, softening explanation.
I think it’s complicated. Some of it probably is animus, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some of it isn’t about the specific topic so much as resentment at having the rules changed with no acknowledgement made that rule changes have costs for those who are obeying them.