Editor’s Note: The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the rest of our staff. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item.
By Sharon Challenger.
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” Thomas Jefferson.
Wise words, but I fear not many people today would confess to feeling the same way as Thomas Jefferson.
What brought us to the point where we no longer are willing to have civil discourse about issues we are all facing?
Why do people resort to hurling insults, name-calling, and arguing rather than having well-thought-out discussions?
There are often opportunities to join discussions on the internet. It has provided us with access to opinions and information from people all over the world. Yet as connected as we may seem to be, the truth is, we are more disconnected than ever.
People on social media platforms often align with others who think like they do, talk like they do, and function as they do.
In a rush to defend one’s stance on a topic, some lash out at anyone who disagrees with them. They seem unwilling to hear, much less consider the other person’s ideas. They arm themselves with insults, mean spirited comments, and show little concern for the person they are addressing.
When they disagree with someone, a “keyboard warrior” sits down in their war room and prepares an attack. Sometimes it is quite vicious.
Do they care if someone is mortally wounded? Oftentimes not. Blinded by a need to be right, they forge ahead and welcome others to pile on with their anger and hatred. They don’t have to look their victim in the eye and as a result remain aloof, unaware of the harm they may cause.
If they had to stand in front of their opponent and look them square in the eye, they might have a different response. Maybe there would be a human connection. Maybe the chance to stand in the other person’s shoes would make them see things in a new light. Maybe it would make them stop for a moment and reflect, “I never considered that, maybe I’m wrong.”
The media and social media companies thrive on this warfare, on people trying to prove they are “right.” Like Generals, on a battlefield, their executives view the fighting from afar and stay out of the fray until necessary. Only when they are called before Congress or are paid a visit by the FBI do they begin to worry. Then, and only then, do they look into what they might do to curtail the wars. Under pressure, they might even admit to increasing censorship.
Should they have to monitor what is written on their platforms? Many wish they would not while others cry for stricter rules. However, who would set the rules? Who would decide what could be published, or what we could read? Would attempts to control freedom of speech do more harm than good?
Healthy debate has been valued for eons. The Ancient Greeks prided themselves on a firm grasp of how to debate effectively. It requires skill, not name-calling and personal attacks, to build a case that could persuade an opponent to see things from your perspective. Whether or not we see a trend in this style of presenting ideas on social media platforms, remains unknown. If we are to build bridges in communication, it will certainly not be done by tearing each other to bits.
