Further, it's a white man's internet because it's a white man's world.

When thinking about your online experiences you should see this reality taking shape. Think about the comments on youtube. Think about any thread in a popular subreddit. Think about the comment section of your local newspaper. At any moment a KKK rally might spring out of any of these environments.

I've been spinning this idea around in my head for a few days; why are white men in America so fucking angry?

We'd do well not to pretend that things are different than they are. Donald Trump's success in the polls has shown us something: a lot of white men are angry.

They're angry at mexicans and they're angry at women. They're angry at a Big Government that ostensibly serves the interests of minorities and women, exclusively.

What is fascinating in all this is that we, collectively, don't talk about it very much. White men in America have a monopoly on anger.

An angry white man is a leader.

An angry black man or arab is dangerous.

An angry woman is emotional.

These are stereotypes that you can see in the world. What is a negative stereotype of an angry white man? There aren't any. We dissect out negative stereotypes of the angry white man; there's the angry redneck, the angry conspiracy theorist, or what have you, but note the distinction: all angry black men are dangerous; only particular angry white men are a problem.

When brown-skinned terrorists attacked the twin towers we threw out the bill of rights. When white-skinned terrorists blow up a federal building, or shoot up a public space, we ignore it. It doesn't matter how often it happens. "They were broken. There is nothing wrong with white men, or white men's culture. These people are the exception."

And so we don't talk about it. Gun culture and fear of government are part of what it means to be American. We can't have a meaningful conversation about gun culture or fear of government because it would mean we'd be having a conversation about something we cannot discuss: the problem of the angry white man.

I asked earlier "why" and proceeded to say nothing about why. I think that you can guess why.

Why did the south collective commit treason?

Why does this picture exist?

Because leveling the playing field is a zero-sum game. A woman's right to vote comes at the expense of a man's vote being diminished, and so it follows for the rest. The position of the white man is a position propped up by injustice, historical and contemporary. An attack on injustice is a proxy war on the white man.

When an angry white man talks about "social justice warriors" he is laying his mind bare to you; justice is necessarily a war on white men because that is who injustice serves.

I'd be remiss to leave out the economic elephant in the room: the angry white man is all the more angry because privilege is delegated by class as well as race and gender. That the angry white man should blame other angry white men for his economic woes is something that doesn't occur to him, amazingly.

But enough.

Here on our friendly little hubski we've not done half bad; when the angry white man came for our community we said "go back to reddit." Well, we've done better than most, but it wasn't without some casualties. If we'd decided to have this conversation sooner, maybe we wouldn't have lost what we did.