4 ms·

I'm impressed. This is possibly the only article I've seen about 4chan whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures to make interest

I'm impressed. This is possibly the only article I've seen about 4chan whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures to make interesting analyses.

justabystander 10y ago
> only article ... whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures I was thinking that at first, too, until I noticed that the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self-resignation. Betas just take whatever they're given. Calling someone "beta" is actually a common insult to many of the sub-cultures that she sweeps together. It's the recognition that someone else is in control. You have to actually look at it from their perspective to get it. These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and the bootlickers. The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark corners of the internet escapes her.
- sevenless 10y ago
  I agree. I thought this article did a better job of discussing these weird net subcultures from an outsider perspective, and capturing the ironic/serious tone of all the atrocious crap they say: https://newrepublic.com/article/132039/tay-exposes-fairy-tales-tell-racists https://newrepublic.com/article/132039/tay-exposes-fairy-tal...
- pron 10y ago
  > the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self-resignation. Except she says exactly that: The term “beta” ... is an ironic inversion of the fabled swagger of the alpha male. “beta male” is a common term of identification, one of both belonging and self-mockery. > These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and the bootlickers. She says exactly that, too: Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and curatorial in their cultural habits. But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male? And can “traditional ideas about gender” really be bursting forth from an Internet culture that also features gender-bending pornography, discussions about bisexual curiosity, and a male My Little Pony fandom? In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words “nerd” and “geek” among the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities. The beta style draws from a countercultural genealogy and identifies itself against feminism but also against social conservatism, political correctness, mainstream consumer culture, and most important, against hegemonic masculinity itself. As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense of self-loathing, they’re further actuated by a pronounced sort of class contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses, the unspecial “normies,” is not reflected back to them by others in real life. > The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark corners of the internet escapes her. Except that it does not escape her, as she says: The casual racism embedded in this geeky beta world comes wrapped in several layers of self-protective irony Commentators like Coleman have lent a certain credibility to the beta uprising’s contention that its motives are misinterpreted by a public that fails to grasp its unique brand of postmodern wit. Some people, they say, simply “don’t get” that the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.”
  - justabystander 10y ago
    So, let's pull the sections from your own quote that you missed. > But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male Here she says that they're explicitly identifying as beta males, when nearly every culture she referenced rejects and mocks it. Also > this geeky beta world > The beta style draws from > Among the stale memes, repeat posts, true-life confessions, pre-rampage tip-offs, and cock-and-bull stories that make beta forums so impenetrable The phrase "beta rebellion" is in the article eight times. She is literally basing this entire article on betas, when the groups mentioned inside don't think very much of betas at all. If you're not seeing that, you're projecting an awful lot onto this article. Not only that, her understanding of betas is faulty. > Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and curatorial in their cultural habits. She's conflating introversion with beta, when they're both orthogonal attributes. And she's claiming this is where the internet misogyny comes from. Betas are perceived as being afraid to speak controversial opinions or in other ways step out of line (they're followers, remember?), and also as people that will say the most pleasing things in order to get attention. _None_ of which lines up with the forums and sub-cultures she's describing. Betas may pop on the internet and try to be tough, but it's usually just them RPing some sort of fantasy. They might talk down on people who reject them, but there's nothing they resent more than their inability to change things. > the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.” Here she's claiming that the burn the world down for fun behavior of the chans is beta behavior. She started this whole article with mass shootings, transitions into betas, makes a link with online forums as if the internet is breeding them. In reality, the problems behind people who make IRL attacks don't start in internet forums. The callous spite for anything and everything certainly doesn't help fix them. But the chans talk about these people as beta to mock their weakness. In their minds, they literally didn't have enough guts to do anything about their problems in real life until they snapped. In summary, no, she doesn't understand the people or the ideas at all. She just cherry-picked words and did some meme research for authenticity. And then she grabbed the biggest brush she could buy to paint everyone the same color.
    - pron 10y ago
      First of all, this is a rather short, non-academic article, not a book, so some generalizations (and catch-phrases) are necessary in order to state any thesis at all. Second, I think you're fixating too much on your disagreement with the author on the use of the word betas. You think she's misusing it and applying it to a different group? Fine. I don't see how her thesis is affected by (what you believe to be) incorrect labeling (I agree with her, BTW[1]). Broad strokes and catchphrases necessitated by the medium aside[2], I think this is the best article on internet culture I've read in quite some time. [1]: I think that she (correctly) applies the label as they (or some of them) self-deprecatingly call themselves (in opposition to the jock alphas), rather than as an objective description of "weak(er) followers". She stresses over and over that they don't view themselves as followers regardless of their self-applied label. [2]: And those limitations are very clear to readers of a high-end magazine like the Baffler.

I'm impressed. This is possibly the only article I've seen about 4chan whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures to make interesting analyses.

justabystander 10y ago

> only article ... whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures I was thinking that at first, too, until I noticed that the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self-resignation. Betas just take whatever they're given. Calling someone "beta" is actually a common insult to many of the sub-cultures that she sweeps together. It's the recognition that someone else is in control. You have to actually look at it from their perspective to get it. These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and the bootlickers. The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark corners of the internet escapes her.

sevenless 10y ago
I agree. I thought this article did a better job of discussing these weird net subcultures from an outsider perspective, and capturing the ironic/serious tone of all the atrocious crap they say: https://newrepublic.com/article/132039/tay-exposes-fairy-tales-tell-racists https://newrepublic.com/article/132039/tay-exposes-fairy-tal...
pron 10y ago
> the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self-resignation. Except she says exactly that: The term “beta” ... is an ironic inversion of the fabled swagger of the alpha male. “beta male” is a common term of identification, one of both belonging and self-mockery. > These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and the bootlickers. She says exactly that, too: Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and curatorial in their cultural habits. But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male? And can “traditional ideas about gender” really be bursting forth from an Internet culture that also features gender-bending pornography, discussions about bisexual curiosity, and a male My Little Pony fandom? In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words “nerd” and “geek” among the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities. The beta style draws from a countercultural genealogy and identifies itself against feminism but also against social conservatism, political correctness, mainstream consumer culture, and most important, against hegemonic masculinity itself. As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense of self-loathing, they’re further actuated by a pronounced sort of class contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses, the unspecial “normies,” is not reflected back to them by others in real life. > The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark corners of the internet escapes her. Except that it does not escape her, as she says: The casual racism embedded in this geeky beta world comes wrapped in several layers of self-protective irony Commentators like Coleman have lent a certain credibility to the beta uprising’s contention that its motives are misinterpreted by a public that fails to grasp its unique brand of postmodern wit. Some people, they say, simply “don’t get” that the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.”
- justabystander 10y ago
  So, let's pull the sections from your own quote that you missed. > But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male Here she says that they're explicitly identifying as beta males, when nearly every culture she referenced rejects and mocks it. Also > this geeky beta world > The beta style draws from > Among the stale memes, repeat posts, true-life confessions, pre-rampage tip-offs, and cock-and-bull stories that make beta forums so impenetrable The phrase "beta rebellion" is in the article eight times. She is literally basing this entire article on betas, when the groups mentioned inside don't think very much of betas at all. If you're not seeing that, you're projecting an awful lot onto this article. Not only that, her understanding of betas is faulty. > Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and curatorial in their cultural habits. She's conflating introversion with beta, when they're both orthogonal attributes. And she's claiming this is where the internet misogyny comes from. Betas are perceived as being afraid to speak controversial opinions or in other ways step out of line (they're followers, remember?), and also as people that will say the most pleasing things in order to get attention. _None_ of which lines up with the forums and sub-cultures she's describing. Betas may pop on the internet and try to be tough, but it's usually just them RPing some sort of fantasy. They might talk down on people who reject them, but there's nothing they resent more than their inability to change things. > the betas are in it strictly “for the lulz.” Here she's claiming that the burn the world down for fun behavior of the chans is beta behavior. She started this whole article with mass shootings, transitions into betas, makes a link with online forums as if the internet is breeding them. In reality, the problems behind people who make IRL attacks don't start in internet forums. The callous spite for anything and everything certainly doesn't help fix them. But the chans talk about these people as beta to mock their weakness. In their minds, they literally didn't have enough guts to do anything about their problems in real life until they snapped. In summary, no, she doesn't understand the people or the ideas at all. She just cherry-picked words and did some meme research for authenticity. And then she grabbed the biggest brush she could buy to paint everyone the same color.
  - pron 10y ago
    First of all, this is a rather short, non-academic article, not a book, so some generalizations (and catch-phrases) are necessary in order to state any thesis at all. Second, I think you're fixating too much on your disagreement with the author on the use of the word betas. You think she's misusing it and applying it to a different group? Fine. I don't see how her thesis is affected by (what you believe to be) incorrect labeling (I agree with her, BTW[1]). Broad strokes and catchphrases necessitated by the medium aside[2], I think this is the best article on internet culture I've read in quite some time. [1]: I think that she (correctly) applies the label as they (or some of them) self-deprecatingly call themselves (in opposition to the jock alphas), rather than as an objective description of "weak(er) followers". She stresses over and over that they don't view themselves as followers regardless of their self-applied label. [2]: And those limitations are very clear to readers of a high-end magazine like the Baffler.