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.”