Is Libtards really a widely used word in the UK?
Not Really, it feels more like a Circa 2018ish RW American YT/Terminally online sort of "Slur". But TBF I've not called anyone a "Gammon" online or in person (Quietly, behind their back) for about a year...
The Buzzword-bingo term that does still apply (IMO) if "Culture war" that's still alive and kicking and as a term it covers both directions of play.
Broadly speaking I'd say British politics and social discourse is now "Centrist" and has been since at least the late 90s...
Most people are a bit to the left on some topics, a bit to the right on others, hence the frequent criticism that not much really differentiates Labour and the Conservatives.
The various online spaces are now just forums to rage bate those on the fringes and derive some guff for websites to froth about. nothing is really happening there.
I'm intrigued now, which returning edge lord is the OP suspected of being?
Another one to add to the list of very obvious Sockpuppets.
Is Libtards really a widely used word in the UK?
It doesn't make sense in the UK, because "liberal" means something completely different here.
Hmm. On reflection, I see that "making sense" is not necessarily a requirement ....
The centre of gravity in parliamentary politics has distinctly moved to the right but I'm not sure this is reflected throughout the electorate. It wasn't that long ago that it was unthinkable that doctors and nurses would strike or that hundreds of thousands of people would protest against apartheid. Some of the politicians are feeling the pressure from below and are now backtracking (a bit) on their earlier statements. But as with all these things, they allow all the killing to happen then eventually they cry 'never again', till next time.
Most people are a bit to the left on some topics, a bit to the right on others, hence the frequent criticism that not much really differentiates Labour and the Conservatives.
Yep. You Gov did a very interesting survey about people holding 'inconsistent' political views. Once again, real life is revealed to be more complex than either politicians, pundits or activists would like or try to pretend it is. Libtards and Gammons are pointless on-line labels that are just to try to wind folks up to reply to Bots
How does one grow the polarisation between left and right though? Compasses, how do they work?
"Libtard" is probably most commonly used by someone who identifies as leftish when characterising the small minded obnoxiousness of someone they see as being to the right. Popularised during the French revolution IIRC.
“Libtard” is probably most commonly used by someone who identifies as leftish when characterising the small minded obnoxiousness of someone they see as being to the right. Popularised during the French revolution IIRC.
That's the complete opposite of what I take it to mean.
I think it's a contraction of 'Liberal and fktard'. 'Liberal' in the US meaning - to the left of the US political spectrum and 'fktard' a juvenile and primarily American insult. I think f***ktard itself is a contraction of the F bomb and 'retard'. I can't imagine the supposed woke left adopting an insult with a derivation partly based on a word mocking the mentally ill
IME 'libtard' is favoured by Alex Jones devotees, Q Anon believers and others on the US far right. It's not a word I have ever seen used by a Brit. Maybe I don't hang out enough on conspiracist or far right websites.
I wonder why the OP chose to use it as a benchmark for one end of the spectrum? Particularly when he claims to have only just heard of Gammon as an insult. A word which is in very common British usage. OP are you US based? Where do you encounter the word 'Libtard'.
Tell that to Cambridge Analytica.
The (modern, corporate) internet is all about ‘engagement’ and echo chambers are great for that (left or right of centre).
As ever money is the root of all evil, or is that a bit lefty?
@cookee, I agree. The point is that more engagement can be made not by siloing people, but by exposing them to views they despise in contexts where no common ground will be found, and let the arguing begin
What exactly is the far left? I look around at western politics and fail to see any far left movement, in fact there is barely any left of centre movement.
As someone who strongly supports the Morning Star editorial line I am very happy to be described as far-left (I make a clear distinction with the ultra-left, the MS is not ultra-leftist)
But the term which is probably generally considered to be more acceptable is 'radical left'. In Europe that political position is typically occupied by Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Die Linke in Germany.
I agree that the far-left has little electoral support compared to that for the far-right though. But that is also true of the left generally and emergence of the pasokification phenomenon.
Almost 100 years ago in response to economic and social crisis support for the far-right rose in Europe, the lure of simple solutions and easy scapegoats was hard to resist.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
I think it’s a contraction of ‘Liberal and f***ktard’.
It's funny how the origins of terms is sometimes lost! I am fairly confident that the original term was retard. Which as a term of insult definitely has a presence in UK English.
I am fairly confident that the original term was retard.
Yes, as I said
I think f***ktard itself is a contraction of the F bomb and ‘retard’.
have you met all the people who say the the stuff online and are they any different in real life?
I am exactly the same
If been on the Internet for a long time and have met many people from different circles over the years. Anecdotally, people are either exactly the same or totally different. I wouldn't like to assume a direct correllation between the two. I'm told Fred is lovely in real life, for instance.
I’m suspicious, let’s say, that they aren’t really interested in the answer.
When threads/posts like this appear from a username I don't recognise, I always go and check the account creation date. I'm rarely surprised. Contentious posts whilst the ink is still wet on their application is the hallmark of a returning banned, genuine new users tend to keep their head down for a while or go asking for advice on pedals.
The title was just an excuse to use the term gammon, I’d never heard it before and thought it was funny.
I take it back, you must be new here.
I am fairly confident that the original term was retard.
I assumed "retard" also. Not a wildly uncommon insult pondside.
Yes, as I said
Missed that. Fair point.
So essentially the OP is pitting a US derogatory descriptor against a UK one? 3/10, poor effort - low grade trolling.
are they any different in real life?
I am far more likely to shrug and change the subject in real life. Many people are. Most even?
[ obviously, I don't consider what I post online as either extreme or polarised.. but then, who does? ]
3/10, poor effort – low grade trolling.
Two pages though which isnt a bad start.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings
I'd argue they're specific musings actually.
Two pages though which isnt a bad start.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings.
Fair. I'm sure once a few more of the usual suspects bite it'll start getting spicy.
They can't resist.
Something that just occurred to whilst reading through this:
We can argue about social media being evil because of various reasons, and some really love to argue just that (hilariously, on social media). It empowers people, it's somehow simultaneously both an echo chamber and a cesspit of unpleasant views. etc etc.
But, it also makes it a lot safer to challenge those views. Someone makes, let's say a misogynistic statement, it might all be a bit 'keyboard warrior' but it's easy to reply "actually mate, that's inappropriate." They might not care - they probably won't - but they might go "oh shit, sorry, I didn't realise, I'll try not to say that again." Either way, I read something recently which I thought was quite insightful: challenging this behaviour isn't for the person you're challenging, it's for everyone else reading. Things are only acceptable if we, well, accept them.
Compare and contrast. I was at a pub quiz on my own (because I'm a sad sack I was an advance scouting party to see if it was any good). One of the questions was "what nationality is [someone]?" I can't remember who it was, maybe Mo Salah, it's not really important. Someone at the back of the pub yells out really loudly, "a P**i!" I winced but... what could I do? Online I'd have said something, in more a favourable public situation possibly likewise, but in a pub full of half-cut Burnley scrotes? Getting my head kicked in for being a ****-lover would have achieved nothing.
But, it also makes it a lot safer to challenge those views. Someone makes, let’s say a misogynistic statement, it might all be a bit ‘keyboard warrior’ but it’s easy to reply “actually mate, that’s inappropriate.” They might not care – they probably won’t – but they might go “oh shit, sorry, I didn’t realise, I’ll try not to say that again.” Either way, I read something recently which I thought was quite insightful: challenging this behaviour isn’t for the person you’re challenging, it’s for everyone else reading. Things are only acceptable if we, well, accept them.
The 'challenge' here is anonymity*. it makes the challenge toothless, and it provides a veil for those being challenged to hide behind. And challenging anything on line rarely leads to contrition like it may if you were face to face, you're losing all the other cues which could help in that situation to potentially not escalate things further, online seems to do nothing but.
I think the 'easier to challenge online' concept is something that's a product some have dreamed up to avoid reflection and acknowledgement of the limits of their own courage. Again, which is fine, everybody has the right to decide what they're comfortable/confident with challenging.
*i'm not advocating for full ID checks, simply offering how it's not as useful as people think.
Not everyone is anonymous on the internet. Agree on your main point, but your "lack of courage" point is a bit mean really. We moderate our antagonism more in real life, for good practical and social reasons. No one wants every Friday night out to turn into a tiresome argument with the chance if it escalating to violence.
Mean as it may be, doesn't make it any less valid. And your point about kicking off is equally as valid. Lets not dress it up, some people are far more comfortable and capable of dealing with differing levels of conflict than others.
It's not a judgement, but simply a reality.
Some people don't have the social skills to avoid conflict in public places. Don't dress that up as "courage".
Fair challenge. But my point still stands.
Sorry, your point was fair as well, if not taken in isolation. Lots of reasons for people avoiding conflict to "get along" in public, and fear of getting a kicking is definitely one of them, you are right there.
The ‘challenge’ here is anonymity*. it makes the challenge toothless, and it provides a veil for those being challenged to hide behind.
I don't disagree, but as I said, it's not for their benefit. Who knows what impressionable young minds are reading this stuff? What's the alternative, we just ignore it? Then they win.
I'm quite well aware of the limits of my courage. It's rather low, I'm ten stone wet through and really good at running away from things. Lying bleeding in the gutter outside the Dog & Bastard waiting for an ambulance to arrive would be a pyrrhic victory at best.
Yep, while it means those lacking 'courage' in real life have a voice it also allows those that know they can't get away with things as easily in real life (such as racism) to say whatever they want.
So for the latter is online really giving us the view of what people are really like when you remove their "I can't say this in public" filter?
So for the latter is online really giving us the view of what people are really like when you remove their “I can’t say this in public” filter?
Could very well be, but then also people for long-winded reasons do post things online they do not necessarily believe simply to get a response.
Isn't real life a bit less polarised than online simply because most people tend to be surrounded by other people like them?
relapsed_mandalorian
I’m sure once a few more of the usual suspects bite it’ll start getting spicy
Aren't you one of the usual suspects?
Aren’t you one of the usual suspects?
Oh the ironing!
No one wants every Friday night out to turn into a tiresome argument with the chance if it escalating to violence.
Have you been to Newcastle?
I have always been confused by the echo-chamber theory of the internet tbh, as I encounter a far larger diversity of people and views on the internet than I ever do in real life and I figured that must be the same for most people.
Because the echo-chamber theory of the internet is wrong. People get triggered on social media because they have to confront views and ideas that are outside their normal echo chamber.
The good people at Kurzgesagt even did a video on it.
do people on here agree that the polarisation is a thing and if so, why has it happened
One of the founders of Google stated in an interview years ago that the best way to keep people online (and therefore increase their profits) was through conflict/arguments, a lot of people make a LOT of money by promoting controversy and division online
Have you been to Newcastle?
Yup, great city for nightlife, always welcoming and always friendly.
Both it and Gammons are unhelpful though really, once you start down the path of this sort of abuse, its becomes increasingly easier to “other” people with different political belief’s to you.
Worth remembering next time we all get dragged down to their level
So we have a perfect little echo chamber going on ourselves 🙂
The point they made about the "old internet" eg forums and bulletin boards really rang true. This place is an echo chamber, but that's why its fun to spend time on it and contribute to it.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours. The algorithm then feeds you those because anger is good for engagement, even if its ultimately really bad for your mental health.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours. The algorithm then feeds you those because anger is good for engagement, even if its ultimately really bad for your mental health.
Yep, I had to quit facebook for this reason, and even on here there are threads I have to drag myself away from.
In real life, I despise conflict and avoid it to an unhealthy degree, but on the internet I find it very hard to walk away from an argument even when it's glaringly obvious how s**ty it's making me feel.
Twitter is a cesspit of hate and disagreement because you can always find someone who has views diametrically opposed to yours.
Only if you go looking for it. It's readily avoidable, even in post-Muskrat days. Curate your feed with people you like and don't read the comments.
Yep, I had to quit facebook for this reason
As above really. I don't see this on Facebook, at all, aside from ill-moderated groups which I've long since flounced from. This was in fact a key component in the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal; the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it, those who might object never saw the propaganda and so didn't even know to protest until it was too late.
This is a snapshot of what Leave.EU was sending as targeted posts. Did you see it? I didn't. If you did then that rather raises questions as to why the algorithms thought you might be a receptive audience.
(use of "you" is generic here, not aimed at any individuals)
The idea of some equivalence between the far right and the far left is just a fantasy, the far left doesn’t exist in any real way, other than a lie to portray an imaginary ideological battle.
Pointed this out years ago when someone was going on about rabid left wingers. It's ironic most western governments view right wing groups/individuals as the largest domestic terrorist threat. In the US they are organised, heavily armed, backed-up by certain professions, prominent politicians and the mainstream media.
I'd go further. In the last 15 years there has been a concerted effort to stamp out any remotely left leaning discourse in the public domain.
Not read the whole thread but surely snowflake is the opposite of gammon in the UK. Seems to be the go to term for anyone expressing remotely leftist views.
Dunno, Snowflake is more of a projection with right wingers, Trump being an arch snowflake at times.
the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it,
It was and still is cleverer than that, it starts by targeting pretty innocuously, maybe some slightly credible stories about "EU are ruining bicycles with X legislation" and it drags the victims in just nudging them along to more hateful topics. It is dangerous to be smug about the impact and believe that it is only other people who are stupid and/or vulnerable people that can be ensnared.
As above really. I don’t see this on Facebook, at all, aside from ill-moderated groups which I’ve long since flounced from. This was in fact a key component in the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal; the hate was exceptionally well targeted it at those who were most likely to be receptive to it, those who might object never saw the propaganda and so didn’t even know to protest until it was too late.
This is a snapshot of what Leave.EU was sending as targeted posts. Did you see it? I didn’t. If you did then that rather raises questions as to why the algorithms thought you might be a receptive audience.
I've never had that sort of stuff on my feed. What tipped me into quitting facebook was the amount of anti-cycling stuff I was seeing. I went through a period of feeling increasingly unsafe on the roads, which was partly due to a couple of cm-close incidents from drivers that were pretty much aiming their cars at me, but at some point I realised facebook was probably the bigger factor in my heightened anxiety.
The other issue for me is that I do like using the internet as an opportunity to learn about people and views that I amost never encounter in real life, so my youtube feed, for example, is often an incoherent mess.
