We have reached a point in history where the internet is accessible on a worldwide level. It is a place no longer niche nor reserved for the technology-minded. Because of this, internet culture has become intertwined with real-life interactions. Unfortunately, with this accessibility we have seen an increase in groupthink behavior and a decrease in independent research and thought. Not only this, but the increased social pressure to take stances on issues that most were previously neutral or uninformed on. This is where the culture differs from previous generations — we now exist simultaneously in two separate worlds, both of which are interconnected.

The overuse of recycled phrases and humor have made arguments indistinguishable from one another, despite being applied to a wide variety of social causes. This has affected our behaviors, speech patterns, and the depiction of our identity. Rusyns have not, and will not remain immune to these trends, with millennials and Gen-Z at the very center of this experience. It is crucial that young Rusyns are aware of the superficial nature of modern internet culture, which bases itself on a hierarchy of supposed credibility, more so than actual sincerity. To understand this phenomenon, however, we should first recognize its origin and, perhaps more importantly, its appeal.

In general, most aspects of culture that were once niche are now largely acknowledged due to the rise in social media, especially in the years following 2015. By the second half of the 2010s, a majority of people had abandoned their flip phones in favor of smartphones. As a result, major social media platforms such as Instagram gained widespread popularity. Since then, a number of hobbies, lifestyles, and ideologies have grown substantial followings. With this is the desire to be relevant, which most frequently manifests itself in political activism. The reason younger generations are so politically involved is partially due to how prevalent information seems at first glance. A person can now claim to know about a topic simply because they spent five minutes reading a Tumblr post, or because someone on Twitter said so. The concept of extensive research has been tossed aside in favor of reiterating the opinion of someone else as long as it “makes enough sense” at first glance. 

This means we now struggle to preserve the sacredness and intellectual components of a given subject. Take, for example, political and economic theory as a hobby. In the past, independent research was the default means of attaining knowledge in this area. If you wanted to study Soviet history, you would have to physically go out and buy books, take classes, or maybe watch a documentary here and there. Now, people act as though the research is already done for them: all they have to do is repost another’s findings, claim it as their own opinion, and go back to photoshopping a flower crown on Leon Trotsky. Trends common in meme and fandom culture have found their way into academic disciplines, including history, political, and economic theory.  It is only a matter of time before this becomes noticeable in the Rusyn community, as we are still in the process of establishing a presence on social media, which other groups already have. For this reason, we are vulnerable to conformity as an easy way out, by recycling the same rhetorical tactics.

Whereas memes were once inside jokes limited to online forums, they are now a part of mainstream popular culture. Formal writing as the norm has largely been surpassed by a more friendly texting style. And because both humor and aesthetics are so ingrained in internet culture, people are less accustomed to speaking and typing in a serious tone. This is the main reason many millennials and gen-z now write in all lower-case letters, to appear casual and “less abrasive”. This is also the reason many argument rebuttals are not rebuttals at all, but passive-aggressive insults towards the other party. It’s easier for people to respond with a meme quote instead of their own thought-out response because they know a large majority of their audience will praise them for it. Therefore, it is no longer about the cause itself, but the reward system associated with it. So if a meme quote or insult proves to be more socially effective, the individual can quickly become addicted to the release of dopamine upon receiving this praise and continued acceptance.

All of this being said, I want to offer some points of consideration to my young readers as to how they might counteract these inclinations. The first being, quantity and frequency do not necessarily result in quality content. Do not expect that every topic can be condensed into a single social media post. Some platforms were not designed to hold in-depth discussions but are nevertheless used for “activism” in their most minimal form (Twitter and Instagram come to mind). We should not strive for minimal activism. Although it might be the easiest option, it shows only surface-level concern for the issue at hand and is arguably the least respected form of activism. It does not denote effort nor intensive research, but rather the idea that you can quickly post a vague sentence about social justice and move on with your day. This, after prolonged exposure, desensitizes the audience to the severity of the matter.

The second point is one that any high school or college-level writing course will teach you: show, don’t tell. For example, if you wanted to argue that the Rusyn language is disappearing, explain why. Offer statistics, compare geographic regions and time periods. Better yet, propose a solution. Do not claim injustice or inequality until you can sufficiently explain your reasoning. When it comes to socio-political issues, the opposing side has a habit of caricaturing those who use words like “oppression” and “discrimination” without delving deeper. Without explanation, the tone is accusatory instead of informative – regardless of whether or not you are right. Do not tell others to “educate themselves” if you are making very little effort to do the same.

The third and final point would be if a topic is highly personal for you, take a step back. Before proceeding in the argument, take note of which aspects will cause an emotional reaction in you. Emotional reactions are the main factor that worsen the reputations of social causes. If we take the example of fourth-wave feminism, the term “feminazi” was coined due to a very small, yet very vocal, number of women who claimed they wanted to “kill all men”. This is where it is important to remember the vulnerability of the Rusyn community as a marginalized group. The number of Rusyn activists in comparison to other groups is highly disproportionate. Therefore, if even a small percentage of these individuals are strictly focused on emotional appeal, it will tarnish the reputation of our cause relatively quickly. What might sound passionate to us, will more likely sound obnoxious to those on the outside.

The misconception about these trends is that you can apply them to any group of people and their voices will then be heard. Yet if the majority of young Rusyns follow the same prescribed trends as others on social media, we will actually be at more of a disadvantage due to the current disconnect between our own people and sense of identity. Moreover, many of us have very little to fall back on culturally. Rusyn intellectuals are practically unheard of outside our community, as well as our contributions to both high and low culture in the mainstream. So if we take the same approaches as more intellectually established groups, we will be judged only by those approaches. In doing so, we sacrifice the authenticity, complexity, and academic capabilities that are unique to the Rusyn experience.