[randcraw]

> Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone?

I think it's because online, each of us is disembodied and anonymous. We're a nobody. And nobody wants that. So the quickest way to become somebody is to join a group -- ideally a group that seems to be a winner, that offers easy compelling answers to hard problems... especially answers that somehow favor you and others like you. That's populism. Populists are fearless and decisive and sure they know what's true and right. They also know that everybody who's not on their team doesn't get it. So the quicker you join them, the sooner you become a somebody, a player. And if everyone else like you joins that team and you don't, you could degenerate into something worse than a nobody... an enemy.

Combine that with where fame (and leadership?) seems to have evolved in our culture -- where becoming famous is the result of doing whatever it takes to attract attention. Even if if you lack any substance at all, if you somehow stand out, now you're no longer a nobody. You can't be ignored any more. And in the echo chambers of today's hollowed-out media and bored internet, that seems to be enough for most folks-who'd-rather-not-think to see you as outstanding, and an opinion leader.

Those two phenomena don't sound like much, but they do help explain how an empty angry bombastic boob could become President of the United States of America and split the country like nothing has since slavery.

[tekknik]

Why is Trump in this comment? You talk about dividing the country yet your comment does exactly that.

Further I think you’re wrong in your claims that nobody wants to be anonymous. Some of us are punished for our points of view and very much want to remain anonymous, using it as a place to vent frustrations with no repercussions.

I would go as far as to say that your comment is a prime example of toxicity on the web given you assume (wrongly) that everybody hates Trump and therefore it is ok to step on the thoughts and beliefs of 1/2 of the country

[nmfisher]

I mean, pro- or anti-Trump, you have to admit that he's at least symptomatic of divisive politics, right? It's probably fair to go one step further and say that he also embraces that divisiveness.

That's without expressing an opinion on the underlying politics.

[friendly_fren]

Did Obama not divide the country to a point where Trump could get elected?

[jonnycoder]

I would say Obama divided the country more than Trump. Trumps approval rating among african americans is now over 40%. That's huge. To US citizens, Trump is less divisive in my opinion, but his character definitely sparks the opposite side into creating a new bread of louder and in your face divisive culture (Antifa, etc).

Altough I believe that to be true during the Bush years as the anti-Bush types were very loud and crazy. Now that many more people are online and are able to spread opinion via Twitter/FB/youtube/etc, the divisiveness from activists has gotten louder. Joe Rogan also observes this in how he describes the 2 minute tv news media culture where 10 people are trying to shout over one another to get their point in, and how that is a sign of a dying medium (being replaced by internet, long form discussion, etc). This seems like further proof that the traditional media is more divisive more than ever...it's the last breaths of a dying medium. Don't think that's true? Just watch local tv news in SF Bay Area and compare to a smaller city outside of a major metro (blue) area.