Is Social Media making us angry?

The Times of India newsfeed says: Check out Kareena Kapoor’s killer body transformation in just ten months.

As I zip through the comments, there’s a virtual bitch-fest on. Turns out, almost everyone who hates TOI reads the paper, comments on it and engages on their enlightening threads - Esha Deol and her baby shower, Soha and her baby bump, Taimur and his Swiss vacation.

So X says, ‘Who cares what Kareena does. Why do you think we are interested?’

Y plugs in, ‘Big deal. Who reads toilet paper? You suck.’ 

Z quips, ‘X, you are a hypocrite. Just because she was born in a rich family and you weren’t.’

To which a ‘nationalist’ retorts, ‘Not interested in Love Jihadis who named their unscrupulous offspring after a barbarian.’

Within seconds Kareena’s figure gets political. Extremes get sucked in. ‘Sanghi dumbf**k, so now we have to name our kids according to your 56 inch?’ 

Hello? The article was about an actress and her shapely lady lumps. What happened? Never mind, the toilet paper went laughing all the way to the nearest loo. Bank, I mean. 

Image from here

Which brings me to the moot question: Is the internet making us angry or were we always like this?

Anyone who has interacted on social media knows how vicious our conversations have become. Why does the internet bring out the worst in us? Once upon a time, Twitter was about witty memes, funny hash tags and clever one-liners. Not anymore. Bored of exchanging hearts, smiles and balloons, Facebook conversations are also veering towards the vitriolic mode. 

To begin with, let us accept that the web is turning monologues into dialogues. Social media allows us to converse – to agree or to disagree. When we agree, we simply like, share and move on. But when we disagree, civil discourse flows into murky waters of confrontation and name calling. Disagreement is good, rage is not. But since the conversation is public, how can we come across as a cop out for those reading the jaw-jaw? Silence is akin to defeat. 

Oftentimes, hate is a result of fear. Most hatemongers are attention seeking, insecure people who are fearful of losing what they have – pride, power, influence. Any diverse view threatens their existence. This fear gives rise to anger and confrontation. 

Recently, @GabbbarSingh, a twitter celebrity tweeted, ‘Indian internet hasn’t gone rogue. Just that a forum which was earlier a niche has reached the real India which is racist, misogynist & bigoted.’ 

This may be partially true. Partially, because we know enough number of educated urban-ites who are equally bigoted and intolerant. The shopkeeper from Rampur may abuse in gutter Hindi but the graduate from Bangalore matches it with fu**ing Angrezi finesse. Just that it sounds worse in Hindi for the urbanite. A lot of sarcastic comments come from educated people who use their societal perch to mock the not so privileged. To say that entire real India is racist, misogynist and bigoted would be a sweeping statement.

However, it is also true that the internet has given a voice to those who had no say in our socio-political discourse. A school dropout in Chindwara, a pan-shop owner in Gorakhpur, a jobless youth in Kashmir and a cab driver in Faizabad – all have an opinion. Those who were silent yesterday are all over the internet today. Why, forget engaging with them, we are unlikely to say hello if we meet them in the market. But these are the very people we are having conversations with. 

When a small town frustrated dropout, someone who never saw his mother or sister voice an opinion finds a platform where he can say anything to anyone under a veil of anonymity, he doesn't mind exposing his worst side possible. Abusing powerful men and women, more so women, is liberating for his caged existence. He feels accomplished. Not only does the web allow him to speak his mind, but it also gives him the courage to say things he wouldn’t dare in person. 

Then there is the infamous tyranny of distance. He is in Raipur, you are in Mumbai, how does it matter? Zero consequence. When caught with his pants down, he will delete his abusive comment or suspend his account. And maybe log in again with a pseudonym. On the other hand, if you show the mirror to a reputed journalist or politician, he is likely to call you names and block you. Anger works in different ways with different people.

Most verbal attacks get aggravated because the conversation doesn't happen in real time. Moreover, the veil of the web accentuates arguments. Don’t we brush aside our disagreements when we meet in a social milieu? Hating a tag (Liberal, Bhakt, Congilicker) is easy, not so much a human. 

Talking about labels, it is easy to fall prey to assumptions. Pigeonhole people. Stereotype them. All of this warps our judgement and complicates issues rather than resolving them. People continue believe what they want to. Our truth to them is irrelevant. 

If anything, online conversations tell us that we are all hypocrites of varying degrees with a perceived halo on our heads. Yes, all. Lest we get disheartened, know that the web rage is not exclusive to India. It’s a universal phenomenon. Look how angry the American President is.

 And there’s a long way to go before we can log in to a more tolerant and pleasant social media. Until then it's best to avoid angry conversations and seek real people to converse with. 

Let’s round it up with Kareena.

Bet? Hundred bucks. If the jerk who created online stink about Kareena gets a chance to meet her, he will give anything to catch her glimpse. Who knows, he might even upload a picture with her. To which another angry voice will say, ‘Big deal. Kareena is a sl*t.’ 

Yes, the web exposes our not so pleasant side. Deal with it.