**DISCLAIMER** I note later in the piece that anyone with truly dangerous ideas or ideas that will damage your own mental health to continue to pursue them does not fit within in the 'keep as a friend' category, and in fact, should like be moved to the report or have serious intervention category. Also, there is an unfollow option on facebook now, so that if you do run into say a family member who is ruining your social media life, you don't have to see their posts but can continue to pelt them with yours assuming they haven't unfollowed you. Not in the spirit of the matter, but perhaps necessary post-election. But I also offer a cautious reminder than nonviolent racist can turn around and there are rare examples. Exposure and education is key, but it takes a strong person and a good does of fate to change someone like that ***
It happens. You've got a few short minutes to yourself, so you pop open Facebook, looking to maybe turn the brain off, check in on Aunt Lindy, or get a good giggle at a cat hugging a baby.
Instead, your sensibility is assaulted by a political post that you disagree with. No, it's worse than that. The post is insulting. It's ignorant. Ridiculous. Offensive. Distasteful. Who posted this? How could they think that? No, no! Not Aunt Lindy!
This can surely happen any time of year, and certainly you can expect it to increase during major elections, but this election in particular, is rather brutal. Indeed, this election is stressing Americans out at surprising rates.
There's no sure way to track the impact that this election is having on Facebook friendships, or for that matter, real life relationships. But according to an August 2016 Pew Study, only 25% of Trump supporters have close friends that support Clinton, and 18% of Clinton supporters have close Trump-supporting friends. However, a third of Trump's supporters have no friends at all who support Clinton and 47% of Clinton supporters have zero friendships that see things the Trump way -- but that's the real world, and that was August. A lot has come down the political pipeline since the lazy hazy days of summer. Emails. Assault. Lawsuits.
In the wake of all that has come, I've seen a number of friends declare their Facebooks, for instance, finally "Trump Supporter Free" or make comments that if they've missed you, you might as well unfriend them now. And these aren't flippant statements for most. Many of these comments are backed with heartfelt explanations as to why they can no longer tolerate someone who would support a person who does X or results in the mistreatment of Y.
And when they get personal about it. When they point out how a party completely disrespects an entire race or ignores the relevance of an entire swath of people's way of life. . . I almost join them in the moral cleansing of my feed. I almost believe an unfriending could even be a wake-up call-- it's that bad people!
But only almost.
I can never bring myself to delete anyone. And I don't even block their feeds.
And in fact, when I see their posts, sometimes, I even click on them and skim the article, looking for proof that maybe I'm wrong. I usually don't find it. And sometimes I even find severe logical flaws in what I'm reading. But I still try it out. I still engage.
Because here's the thing, and I think my husband perhaps summed it up best at dinner tonight. He said, "What we need to figure out is, Scalia and Ginsburg used to be friends. We need to figure out how to be like them." It was only death that brought their decades long working relationship and friendship to an end despite their staunch political disagreements.
If two judges from two different ends of the political spectrum can be "best buddies" as Ginsburg would have it, then can't the rest of us learn to tolerate one another? Beyond that, shouldn't we not only tolerate one another but engage in discussion regularly?
But we don't. Referencing that Pew Poll again, only about 30-40% of participants admit to discussing politics with someone who disagrees with them, and they wouldn't call it a serious debate most of the time.
It is important to acknowledge why we don't, and this seems to be a combination of two things:
1. Politeness
2. Echo Chambers
These two items go hand in hand in creating our current, violent political climate.
I actually first wrote about these issues back in 2013 as an explanation as to why I started having my students share their position essays online instead of just turning them in for the grade. In the introduction to the blog that links their work together, I write:
As an author, this is frustrating. You do a little research on yachts for a story, and Google tries to sell them to you for the next month or so. As a way of life, it is incredibly limiting.
But it isn't as simple as blaming programs, or even blaming corporations and branding and polls. We're also to blame, and we were well at work trying to create our own echo chambers before there was an app for that. However, having automated tools -- such as block, delete, unfriend -- only makes it that much easier. They were created because we wanted them. Because we complained about Google Plus Cards on stories we didn't care about or being asked by Facebook if we'd like to friend our ex. And once given the power to digitally construct our own echo chambers, we've gone about it quite happily -- Intensifying our irritation at anything that doesn't fit that mold coming in to interrupt our day or worse -- trying to challenge our way of life.
And it is so incredibly easy.
We have a political climate that is so stressful, so reflexive, and so vile not just because both candidates have their share of scandals and foul deeds, but because we not only distrust sources who generally disagree with us, but because we literally are out of practice with how to engage in a civil manner with those who disagree with us.
Lack of exposure, as always, leads to a reliance on stereotype and rumor and distrust.
Likely, this has always been going on to some extent. I know politics used to be far more physically violent. And I know our brains are lazy, or efficient, in seeking things we like and where we feel safe. And I'm not trying to blame technology. It's merely the tool, and we're abusing it.
Regardless, none of that excuses it does it?
People balk at compromise, at the idea that politicians can "flip flop" or "pander" to their voters or those across the aisle, but that is exactly what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to represent the people, change their mind based on further evidence and good argument, and work to find a compromise that works.
To respect one another despite disagreement.
On a grand scale, we seem to have lost the respect part. Even among some of our politicians. And to a further extent, some of us even seem to have lost respect for those who still bother to engage with and respect the other side. What does respect for the other side look like? Take what President Obama said recently,
And losing sight of it is terrible. Because if we don't engage with and respect the other side -- we absolutely can not change their minds about anything. We can not compromise. We can not function.
And change is possible.
A great recent example is #blacklivesmatter v.s. #alllivesmatter. You'd be surprised how many #alllivesmatter and #blacklivesmatter people are trying to make the same damn argument, but because they are using different language and have latched onto two politically charged hashtags that don't explain themselves because they're hashtags -- meant to be catchy and character efficient, not well articulated moral explanations-- they think they can't see eye to eye with the other person, that they're not recognizing the problems at hand. Yes, there are all lives matter people who think black lives matter people are exaggerating, but there are also a ton that just don't realize what #blacklivesmatter means. I've seen so many posts of people talking to people on the street and reaching an understanding. And once people realized this was possible, post after post after post came out to explain it. And not everyone, but a lot of people changed their minds and stopped using the phrase #alllivesmatter. (It isn't extinct, but there was change and still continues to be.) We need more of that in the world. Open discussion. We can't just assume everyone has bad intentions.
And I get it. These are serious issues. Trump is an extra special type of a candidate. Hilary has had decades worth of public actions to garner support and hate. There are gender issues and unprecedented sexual assault issues and lying and deflecting, and it's a bloody mess out there. A number of their supporters don't really support them. The GOP may be crumbling into something entirely new right before our eyes. And I fear there are some people with hate in their hearts, who can't be reasoned with (though I do doubt they're any kind of a majority. And for the record, if you feel you are truly dealing with a criminally minded individual who truly supports rape, murder, or pillaging, may even be guilty of it, then you likely should do something, alert someone, report something to ensure they get the help they need. Not just unfriend them. And again, this isn't the most likely case in most situations.).
Acknowledging all that, even Trump and Hilary were able to find something they respect about each other. (Thanks Ken Bone!) And their answers were so in tune with their characters, I believe them.
And the world hasn't yet ended.
Not everyone has cast their vote.
Minds can and will still change.
People tell me I'm wasting my time posting on Facebook or by getting into a fact checking war with someone in a comment of some post somewhere because by this point those who have made up their minds have made it up and nothing that I say, as a random person or friend, is going to change that.
Maybe, that's true. Maybe that isn't. As I joked to my brother -- I just can't help myself from trying to change the world one person at a time.
Engaging actively and with respect with those who disagree -- commenting on their posts, not just reading them or scrolling by--is often exhausting and rarely forgiving or rewarding. By the time we've argued our way to common ground, I barely have much fight left anyway. But as each of us tries to remain in control, to withhold insult, the conversation progresses, and I go to bed that night assured that the world isn't as bad as many would have us believe, and knowing that maybe, just maybe, I've changed someone's mind just enough for them to at least appreciate the complexity of an issue.
Maybe that is reward enough.
Having said that, I've also on occasion found others like me, on the other side of an issue, and we've shared so many sources and talked and debated enough that it lead to joking and friend requests. It's not the norm, but that too was worth it.
I've been through the trenches, and I have found that often the two sides just misunderstand each other or are looking at a watered down view of the other. Someone's been misinformed (there's a lot of that online and in the media too). They don't realize where they've made a mistake, and chances are you've missed something too. And sometimes, there are deep philosophies that disagree and you're not going to get them to budge, but you realize, you still have similar goals.
This isn't easy. Especially when one or more people in political power encourage mistrust and attack-mode politics.
But the only way, the ONLY way, to find out, to change minds, and correct errors is to engage with the other side. To continually try to show them where they may be wrong. To continually seek to find if you're actually right. To meet name calling and hate with facts and questions. To "Dare to Disagree."
People have life changing transformations. Democrats become Republicans and Republicans become Democrats. Some become Independents. People move past generations of prejudice. Sometimes not perfectly, but they try.
Maybe we all join together and at least fix the flaws in a political system that lead to this election. (Anyone else ready to get rid of First Past the Poll voting?)
Maybe by arguing (in the academic sense) over what is best for this country, we too can become "best buddies" and bond over our wit and our desire to do what is best for this country.
But none of that is accomplished with silence, nor by unfriending someone.
And I'll admit: I still hesitate before sharing a politically charged post to my feed (though as of late I can hardly help myself), and I don't engage in everything I see, and I can't say I only post non-biased links. I'm not perfect. Sometimes I'm dismissive though I try not to be. And for all I know, someone has blocked or unfriended me.
I'm only human after all. (So's Ken Bone.)
So are we all.
And that is the point.
It happens. You've got a few short minutes to yourself, so you pop open Facebook, looking to maybe turn the brain off, check in on Aunt Lindy, or get a good giggle at a cat hugging a baby.
Instead, your sensibility is assaulted by a political post that you disagree with. No, it's worse than that. The post is insulting. It's ignorant. Ridiculous. Offensive. Distasteful. Who posted this? How could they think that? No, no! Not Aunt Lindy!
This can surely happen any time of year, and certainly you can expect it to increase during major elections, but this election in particular, is rather brutal. Indeed, this election is stressing Americans out at surprising rates.
There's no sure way to track the impact that this election is having on Facebook friendships, or for that matter, real life relationships. But according to an August 2016 Pew Study, only 25% of Trump supporters have close friends that support Clinton, and 18% of Clinton supporters have close Trump-supporting friends. However, a third of Trump's supporters have no friends at all who support Clinton and 47% of Clinton supporters have zero friendships that see things the Trump way -- but that's the real world, and that was August. A lot has come down the political pipeline since the lazy hazy days of summer. Emails. Assault. Lawsuits.
In the wake of all that has come, I've seen a number of friends declare their Facebooks, for instance, finally "Trump Supporter Free" or make comments that if they've missed you, you might as well unfriend them now. And these aren't flippant statements for most. Many of these comments are backed with heartfelt explanations as to why they can no longer tolerate someone who would support a person who does X or results in the mistreatment of Y.
And when they get personal about it. When they point out how a party completely disrespects an entire race or ignores the relevance of an entire swath of people's way of life. . . I almost join them in the moral cleansing of my feed. I almost believe an unfriending could even be a wake-up call-- it's that bad people!
But only almost.
I can never bring myself to delete anyone. And I don't even block their feeds.
And in fact, when I see their posts, sometimes, I even click on them and skim the article, looking for proof that maybe I'm wrong. I usually don't find it. And sometimes I even find severe logical flaws in what I'm reading. But I still try it out. I still engage.
Because here's the thing, and I think my husband perhaps summed it up best at dinner tonight. He said, "What we need to figure out is, Scalia and Ginsburg used to be friends. We need to figure out how to be like them." It was only death that brought their decades long working relationship and friendship to an end despite their staunch political disagreements.
If two judges from two different ends of the political spectrum can be "best buddies" as Ginsburg would have it, then can't the rest of us learn to tolerate one another? Beyond that, shouldn't we not only tolerate one another but engage in discussion regularly?
But we don't. Referencing that Pew Poll again, only about 30-40% of participants admit to discussing politics with someone who disagrees with them, and they wouldn't call it a serious debate most of the time.
It is important to acknowledge why we don't, and this seems to be a combination of two things:
1. Politeness
2. Echo Chambers
These two items go hand in hand in creating our current, violent political climate.
I actually first wrote about these issues back in 2013 as an explanation as to why I started having my students share their position essays online instead of just turning them in for the grade. In the introduction to the blog that links their work together, I write:
Meanwhile, particularly in light of the government shutdown, I was growing increasingly aware that, despite living in an age where information is widely and easily available to everyone, the norm is to not to talk to each other about important issues. While we can Google whatever we want, we seldom step out of our comfort zone to reach out to people who disagree with us, or even read websites or news sources that don't bend toward our opinions. Understanding the opposition is essential to making effective persuasive arguments, which is why I always had my students research both sides, but in real life, we do not seek out the other side, let alone engage with them.What I was struggling with here was our inability to really engage with anyone of an opposing viewpoint. Beyond that though, our digital lives support echo chambers. Google, Facebook, everything that we're linked into tries to sell us and show us only things we are interested in, that we've searched for.
The flip side to that is, despite Facebook and Myspace and hundreds of personal blogs, beyond consumer reviews, the vast majority of us also do not even bother to share our serious opinions very often. This likely goes back to the age-old rule of etiquette which states there being two things you don't talk about in public conversation or with people you do not know: Politics and Religion. You can add to that today anything that might be remotely associated with those things.
We bring ideas up tentatively, feeling each other out to see what side of the argument they fall on before revealing too much about ourselves. If we're not sure, we pull back and keep our opinion to ourselves. Some of us block political or religious posts from our news feeds and beg our friends to stop getting so involved. I get that we started this to be polite, but this rule is misguided. Argument and conflict do not need to be negative. They require concentration, they challenge us, but they do not require the negativity and emotional hurt that we have come so comfortable associating them with.
(For more on this topic, check out Margaret Heffernan's "Dare to Disagree.")
Striving not to make any social faux pas, we've created something I'm sure was unintended: a cultural climate where we are more and more divided on every issue, and hateful mistrust and misunderstanding of "the other side" grows rampant. We are most aware that "Democrat," "Republican," "Conservative," and "Liberal" are uttered by some as though they are racial slurs, but have a talk with someone who is invested in the Chipotle v.s. Qdoba argument and you might be surprised at the fury with which they refer to the other side.
As an author, this is frustrating. You do a little research on yachts for a story, and Google tries to sell them to you for the next month or so. As a way of life, it is incredibly limiting.
But it isn't as simple as blaming programs, or even blaming corporations and branding and polls. We're also to blame, and we were well at work trying to create our own echo chambers before there was an app for that. However, having automated tools -- such as block, delete, unfriend -- only makes it that much easier. They were created because we wanted them. Because we complained about Google Plus Cards on stories we didn't care about or being asked by Facebook if we'd like to friend our ex. And once given the power to digitally construct our own echo chambers, we've gone about it quite happily -- Intensifying our irritation at anything that doesn't fit that mold coming in to interrupt our day or worse -- trying to challenge our way of life.
And it is so incredibly easy.
We have a political climate that is so stressful, so reflexive, and so vile not just because both candidates have their share of scandals and foul deeds, but because we not only distrust sources who generally disagree with us, but because we literally are out of practice with how to engage in a civil manner with those who disagree with us.
Lack of exposure, as always, leads to a reliance on stereotype and rumor and distrust.
Likely, this has always been going on to some extent. I know politics used to be far more physically violent. And I know our brains are lazy, or efficient, in seeking things we like and where we feel safe. And I'm not trying to blame technology. It's merely the tool, and we're abusing it.
Regardless, none of that excuses it does it?
People balk at compromise, at the idea that politicians can "flip flop" or "pander" to their voters or those across the aisle, but that is exactly what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to represent the people, change their mind based on further evidence and good argument, and work to find a compromise that works.
To respect one another despite disagreement.
On a grand scale, we seem to have lost the respect part. Even among some of our politicians. And to a further extent, some of us even seem to have lost respect for those who still bother to engage with and respect the other side. What does respect for the other side look like? Take what President Obama said recently,
"I think I was right and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn't do the job. . . And had they won, I would have been disappointed but I would have said to all Americans they are -- this is our president and I know they're going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense, will observe basic decency, will have enough knowledge about economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional traditions and rule of law that our government will work. And then we'll compete four years from now to try to win an election."Granted, this was part of a speech where he was saying explicitly that he doesn't think Trump could do the job, but what he is referring to here is how it should be, and how it usually is, at least for him, and I agree. This is what we've lost sight of. Seem to lose more sight of year after year.
And losing sight of it is terrible. Because if we don't engage with and respect the other side -- we absolutely can not change their minds about anything. We can not compromise. We can not function.
And change is possible.
A great recent example is #blacklivesmatter v.s. #alllivesmatter. You'd be surprised how many #alllivesmatter and #blacklivesmatter people are trying to make the same damn argument, but because they are using different language and have latched onto two politically charged hashtags that don't explain themselves because they're hashtags -- meant to be catchy and character efficient, not well articulated moral explanations-- they think they can't see eye to eye with the other person, that they're not recognizing the problems at hand. Yes, there are all lives matter people who think black lives matter people are exaggerating, but there are also a ton that just don't realize what #blacklivesmatter means. I've seen so many posts of people talking to people on the street and reaching an understanding. And once people realized this was possible, post after post after post came out to explain it. And not everyone, but a lot of people changed their minds and stopped using the phrase #alllivesmatter. (It isn't extinct, but there was change and still continues to be.) We need more of that in the world. Open discussion. We can't just assume everyone has bad intentions.
And I get it. These are serious issues. Trump is an extra special type of a candidate. Hilary has had decades worth of public actions to garner support and hate. There are gender issues and unprecedented sexual assault issues and lying and deflecting, and it's a bloody mess out there. A number of their supporters don't really support them. The GOP may be crumbling into something entirely new right before our eyes. And I fear there are some people with hate in their hearts, who can't be reasoned with (though I do doubt they're any kind of a majority. And for the record, if you feel you are truly dealing with a criminally minded individual who truly supports rape, murder, or pillaging, may even be guilty of it, then you likely should do something, alert someone, report something to ensure they get the help they need. Not just unfriend them. And again, this isn't the most likely case in most situations.).
Acknowledging all that, even Trump and Hilary were able to find something they respect about each other. (Thanks Ken Bone!) And their answers were so in tune with their characters, I believe them.
And the world hasn't yet ended.
Not everyone has cast their vote.
Minds can and will still change.
People tell me I'm wasting my time posting on Facebook or by getting into a fact checking war with someone in a comment of some post somewhere because by this point those who have made up their minds have made it up and nothing that I say, as a random person or friend, is going to change that.
Maybe, that's true. Maybe that isn't. As I joked to my brother -- I just can't help myself from trying to change the world one person at a time.
Engaging actively and with respect with those who disagree -- commenting on their posts, not just reading them or scrolling by--is often exhausting and rarely forgiving or rewarding. By the time we've argued our way to common ground, I barely have much fight left anyway. But as each of us tries to remain in control, to withhold insult, the conversation progresses, and I go to bed that night assured that the world isn't as bad as many would have us believe, and knowing that maybe, just maybe, I've changed someone's mind just enough for them to at least appreciate the complexity of an issue.
Maybe that is reward enough.
Having said that, I've also on occasion found others like me, on the other side of an issue, and we've shared so many sources and talked and debated enough that it lead to joking and friend requests. It's not the norm, but that too was worth it.
I've been through the trenches, and I have found that often the two sides just misunderstand each other or are looking at a watered down view of the other. Someone's been misinformed (there's a lot of that online and in the media too). They don't realize where they've made a mistake, and chances are you've missed something too. And sometimes, there are deep philosophies that disagree and you're not going to get them to budge, but you realize, you still have similar goals.
This isn't easy. Especially when one or more people in political power encourage mistrust and attack-mode politics.
But the only way, the ONLY way, to find out, to change minds, and correct errors is to engage with the other side. To continually try to show them where they may be wrong. To continually seek to find if you're actually right. To meet name calling and hate with facts and questions. To "Dare to Disagree."
People have life changing transformations. Democrats become Republicans and Republicans become Democrats. Some become Independents. People move past generations of prejudice. Sometimes not perfectly, but they try.
Maybe we all join together and at least fix the flaws in a political system that lead to this election. (Anyone else ready to get rid of First Past the Poll voting?)
Maybe by arguing (in the academic sense) over what is best for this country, we too can become "best buddies" and bond over our wit and our desire to do what is best for this country.
But none of that is accomplished with silence, nor by unfriending someone.
And I'll admit: I still hesitate before sharing a politically charged post to my feed (though as of late I can hardly help myself), and I don't engage in everything I see, and I can't say I only post non-biased links. I'm not perfect. Sometimes I'm dismissive though I try not to be. And for all I know, someone has blocked or unfriended me.
I'm only human after all. (So's Ken Bone.)
So are we all.
And that is the point.
Comments
Post a Comment