How we lost the art of social discourse to the culture of hate?

In a recent Facebook dispute, I was surprised that someone I knew to be so decent thought nothing wrong with verbally attacking an old man, nearly 100 years old, bound to a wheelchair and locked up, not just locked down, like many other senior citizens, in this pandemic.

Of a professional broadcaster’s low blow attack on one of this country’s foremost literary figures—in every sense of the word, a society elder—many decades the broadcaster’s senior, what this friend of mine has to say is, “That he is in a wheelchair is irrelevant to this matter.”

But I say it is relevant to any public discourse, considering that respect of elders has been a hallmark since the dawn of civilization, especially among the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Native Americans, the Chinese, the Indians.

But respect is relevant to public discourse, regardless of who—or how old—the parties are. To be civil is a requirement in any community discussion or any interaction between people, even in contact sports. There is always such a thing as a low blow, a term that alludes to the illegal practice of hitting an opponent below the belt. It’s a rule applied to opponents of equal advantage. What more in an engagement where one of the two parties in a “fight” is “crippled now,” as this old man—a National Artist and, by that honor officially recognizing his immense contribution to country and countrymen, also a venerable and venerated member of our society—described himself just five days before the said fight erupted on Facebook?

If someone threw a stone at you and it turned out to be a child or a man old enough to be your grandfather, would you throw the stone back at them? My example isn’t apt because the old man in the aforementioned Facebook dispute simply shared a personal opinion, a criticism in the form of a critical judgment or evaluation of a cultural event, to which art, music, literary works, performances, and other social phenomena are subject.

But ours has been a culture of contempt that we only understand criticism as fault-finding, as betrayal, as a denunciation, or disparagement so when anybody expresses an opinion counter to ours, we feel justified in retaliating with vicious ad hominem attacks, a fallacy in logic in which the rebuttal is directed against the person or some aspects of the person rather than the argument or the position the person has raised.

Differences in a community are inevitable—and civil discourse, the exchange of ideas, the sharing of opinions, is vital to any society, especially a society like ours that claims to be democratic or claims to fight for democracy or the return thereof. I find it so hypocritical of people to cry for freedom while practically putting a gag on those who have cause to believe there is enough freedom just as much as I find it strange that people are throwing the lowest blows, as well as personal accusations and libelous allegations, including the most vulgar invectives, against powers-that-be whom they accuse of threatening their freedom of expression.

Be that as it may, there is hope yet, especially now that election season has begun and our very future is at stake. Maybe we only need to revisit the golden rules we should have learned in debate club back in high school, the very first of which is the recognition that there is a challenger, as in any debate, whose role is to oppose our belief or position or resolution.

Next is the rule of civility. To be civil is not to give harmful messages a free pass. The object of public discourse is to inform, to convince, to persuade, even to change minds, but the object does not abandon civility, from the Latin word civilitas or the old French word civilite, which pertains to being a good citizen and many centuries later, as civilizations became more and more sophisticated, to polite speech and behavior.

Civic flattery, or a political culture that allows people to appear to engage in civic discourse without ever having their opinions, or even their claims of fact, seriously challenged, is ultimately more damaging to democracy than civic enmity. —Michael Austin

In fact, civility is far deeper than mere good manners. It demands empathy and open-mindedness, a willingness to have our beliefs and biases challenged by an opposing perspective or point of view. I guess we have this tendency to assume the worst of those who differ with us or to paint them as bad or evil or inferior, in which case we might as well think twice about how solid our convictions are, if we must resort to these assumptions to protect them. Engage only with people to whom the object of public discourse applies, meaning there is a chance to inform, convince, or persuade them or to change their minds. Otherwise, disengage in quiet dignity.

Another rule is to recognize that there is a common ground, in which people are best informed, convinced, and persuaded. It is on this common ground, where neither party is offensive nor defensive, that a change of minds or hearts is possible. On discussions over national issues, for instance, try to accept for the sake of argument that you are not the only one who loves this country and, diametrically opposed as theirs are to your own beliefs about how to love this country, it’s not impossible that they love this country as much or even more. It’s possible that these people you call a troll or an idiot are fighting for this country with as much vigor, even though this country has not been half as good to them as it has been to you, even though this country has deprived them of the level of education it has afforded you or of a flushing toilet, 24/7 internet, or even three meals a day. It is equally unfair to assume that just because one is privileged that one is out of touch with reality.

In 2016, Time ran the cover story “Why We’re Losing the Internet to the Culture of Hate,” in which it claimed that “anonymity, invisibility, a lack of authority, and not communicating in real time strip away the mores society spent millennia building. And it’s seeping from our smartphones into every aspect of our lives.”

The culprit mostly is trolls, defined in those early days as Internet users whose reason for being on the web or on social media was to play clever pranks “for lulz” (for laughs), which have since become worse and worse, turning into harassment or violence.

How the trolls have won, causing us all to lose faith in the good in each other! As that Time article put it, troll culture has affected the way nontrolls treat one another. That we now consider a troll anyone who goes against us is how we have let trolls conquer the space in which we share what we think is the best of us from day to day, post after post. Worse yet, we have become trolls ourselves, viciously attacking anyone outside our echo chambers, be it a child or a man whose great memories of respect, dignity, gallantry, and honor, even among enemies, back in those days of ladies and gentlemen are a treasure now that many of us, even those who consider themselves decent, have forgotten what it means to be out of line.

A friend told me it’s complicated. It’s very simple. There is no just cause for disrespect. Just because social media is bad or evil or inferior doesn’t mean you have to be too. There is no victory in this tit for tat, especially not on social media.