A Probably Pointless Plea for Humility and Civility in Online Discourse

Here's a screed that no one asked for, but I've been thinking a lot about social media and civility of discourse lately. While I realize the irony of trying to bring up civility of discourse on a platform that seems diametrically opposed to the idea, it's important and maybe someone will listen to me.

The idea of civil discourse implies an important notion that is easy to lose track of, especially on social media. That implication is that the person with whom you are speaking is an independent, thinking human, deserving of at least a modicum of respect.

I don't think the historic civility, often pined for, within discourse is a natural thing. Far from it. I think what we witness daily on social media is probably more in line with how humans' brains evolved than the supposed worthiness of the legacy media that came before, which broadly, is my entire point.

In order to engage 20 years ago, it was expected that a person possessed a high degree of insight about history, philosophy, politics, literature, and rhetorical patterns before being allowed on the public stage. Someone wishing to produce an opinion in a newspaper (remember those) was – at the very least - required to have command over the language with which they communicated. This isn't to say that there weren't people who wouldn't promote stupid or dangerous or horrible ideas within legacy media, far from it, but there was a standard, and a person violated that standard at his or her own peril, because there were other people ready to dismantle the stupid for the whole world to see.

If it sounds like I'm making an elitist argument for discourse, then I guess I am, but in the same way I'd make an elitist argument for medicine. I want a highly trained doctor taking care of me and my family, not some person who ‘feels' he or she is as qualified as someone who has graduated from medical school. What we say is important and what we put out into the world has consequences, and when we think so little of this fact that we argue or insult from a position of ignorance or emotional reasoning then we are not enhancing an argument we are simply, and smugly, excluding those with whom we do not agree.

I often go through threads that begin with a political opinion or article and inevitably people will chime in with nonsense that is so stunningly ignorant, with reasoning so flawed, that it would be funny if not for the deep conviction that shines through.

Tribalism is like football, in that to be a fan of a particular team, there is no prior requirement other than dedication to that team. No die-hard Mississippi State fan seriously thinks about the intellectual ramifications of being a Mississippi State fan. No Ole Miss fan seriously considers the feelings of the MSU folks during the egg bowl. Insults and posturing and rationalization are what is required to be a fan of the game, nothing more.

If you believe that your position is without flaws, you are wrong. If you believe your political leader is without flaws, you are wrong. If you believe the other side is wholly evil and dangerous, with some very specific exceptions, you are wrong. You can't condemn fascism without knowing what that word means. You can't have conversations about race and gender unless you work to understand what those words mean. You can't call yourself a liberal or a conservative unless you have some understanding of the history and philosophy of those concepts. To do any less is simply to pick a team and to reason with your emotions instead of your head. When that happens we turn those with whom we disagree with into monsters or caricatures rather than people. You might not care, but remember, they are doing the same to you.

Beware the zealot and the firebrand. Beware the person who puts ideology above all other things. Beware namecallers and serial posters, but pity them as well, because they don't know how ignorant they are. Have the courage to learn about the other side. Hate conservatives? Go out of your way to find the greatest conservative thinkers and writers and challenge yourself to read and understand them. Hate liberals? Go out of your way to find the best liberal thinkers and writers and immerse yourself in them. Stop being a Google scholar and try to be a real scholar. The books are available and mostly free. It's not that hard.

Finally (and this is something I work on constantly), attempt to approach every encounter and idea with humility and compassion, and this is the hard bit, the capacity to recognize and respect true authority. Humility means that unless you are a true expert (and watching 1,000 hours of Youtube videos does not count), you very well could be wrong about any particular issue. Compassion means remembering that no matter with whom you are dealing, fundamentally they, like you, are a human being – and very few people are wholly good or wholly evil (including you). The hard bit is understanding what true authority looks