Written by Karl Schneider, WCA Trustee
After almost a decade of using X (formerly Twitter) to follow public debates and, occasionally, add my own thoughts, I think I’m finally ready to give up and walk away. It has just become too brutally unpleasant a place to spend my time.
Not that I have found anywhere better to go. Other social media platforms seem to have the same problem to a greater or lesser extent. And even face-to-face discussions are often tainted with the same malevolence.
In an age of increasing polarization and online anonymity, the art of civil debate seems to have been lost. Discussions on contentious matters almost inevitably degenerate into abuse, personal attacks and threats. And, occasionally, something worse.
The murder of US right wing activist Charlie Kirk was a stark reminder of how badly wrong things can go when political disagreements jump the rails of civil debate.
That killing has sparked a renewed round of hand-wringing over our apparent inability to tackle touchy topics with civility. Why can’t we, in the words of former US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “disagree without being disagreeable”?
The problem is not just that the rapid turn to abuse and threats damages relationships and can cause mental (and sometimes physical) hurt. It also hinders our ability to solve problems and understand different perspectives.
All too often debates are viewed as rhetorical boxing matches, where the objective is to “win” by delivering a verbal knock-down. The result is more like a rap battle than a reasoned debate.
The chance of actually learning anything is remote – even if someone does make an interesting point we’re too busy concocting the perfect barbed riposte to actually consider the merits of their argument. And if you think you’re actually going to change anyone’s mind this way, forget it.
I have no illusions that the sorry state of public discussion will improve any time soon. I suspect Samuel Johnson was right when he said: “When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency.”
But, for anyone who cares to listen, I have a few thoughts on what we can do as individuals to foster a more civil debate.
The first step is to listen – and listen to understand rather than to reply. If we are too focused on winning the argument to properly take in what is being said we’re likely to misunderstand, leading to an unproductive back-and-forth where both parties are talking past each other. Instead, make a conscious effort to truly hear what the other person is saying. Try to rephrase their argument in your own words to ensure you’ve understood it correctly.
Don’t fall into a tribe mentality, where you feel obliged to support a long list of ideas because they belong to your “side”. Too often we pay less attention to the merits of an argument than we do to who is making it. There is an element of comfort and safety in feeling part of an ideological team, but entirely delegating your beliefs to one is an act of mental capitulation.
Perhaps the most important principle is to recognise the difference between the person and their ideas. When we disagree with someone, it’s easy to conflate their argument with their character. We might think, “How can they be so ignorant?” or “They must be a bad person to believe that.” That leads to ad hominem attacks, where we attack the person instead of the argument. Instead, we should focus on the merits of the idea itself. Ask yourself, “What is the logical basis for this claim?” or “What evidence supports this viewpoint?” This approach allows us to challenge beliefs without making the other person feel attacked, making them more open to listening to what we have to say.
It’s important to add here that civility doesn’t mean burying differences, removing all passion from debates or ignoring offensive or dangerous ideas in the hope that they will go away. Ideas can be challenged just as robustly, and usually more effectively, when done without resorting to abuse. Civility is not about biting your tongue, but rather applying it more effectively.
Ultimately, civil debate is not about winning; it’s about learning. It’s about exchanging ideas in a way that enriches our understanding of the world and the people in it. By focusing on ideas instead of individuals, listening with the intent to understand and practicing empathy, perhaps we can reclaim the lost art of respectful discourse. In doing so, we not only improve ourselves but also contribute to a more thoughtful, tolerant and connected society.
If you enjoyed reading this blog, there are more blogs featured on the website under ‘Noticeboard’: Wimblecomm Blog – Wimbledon Community Association
And for the latest on What’s On, visit our Events pages at Events 24 – Wimbledon Community Association