It is heartbreaking to watch people I know and respect and love tearing each other apart. There have always been at least two sides to every argument, but now it seems there are only two extreme arguments. Anyone who is not 100% in agreement with our position is assumed to be ignorant or immoral.
What happened to moderate opinions? Where is the middle ground? Actually, the middle ground still exists, but not in the world of social networks and much of online media. Why? There is a lot of money to be made by polarizing people on the internet. This tendency fuels Cancel Culture, but we'll get to that in a minute.
The middle finger
In social
media, people seem to revert to the most primitive forms of behavior. It
is as though we are in our car with the windows rolled up and find
something annoying about another driver. We shout, we curse, we honk,
and we even give the other driver the finger. This is behavior we would
rarely if ever use in a face-to-face conversation. But social media
insulates from us the other person. The other person becomes the Other. Have you heard about algorithms? These computer programs are designed to encourage emotional reactions on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the rest. The social media platforms make more money from their advertising when people spend more time on their content. They make more money when you reaffirm opinions you agree with by sharing and commenting. They also make more money when you react out of anger, fear, or hate and share it with others and comment on it.
Law and Order doesn't exclude Black Lives Matter
As a friend of mine writes: "Another point that needs to be made is that we all need to be on the lookout for arguments that have the false underlying premise that one view necessarily excludes and opposes the other. Saying that I support law and order and safe neighborhoods does not exclude me from also supporting "Black Lives Matter." Conversely, if I am a supporter of "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean I have to support defunding police. Exercising freedom to protest does not mean that all protestors want to see looting or approve of it. It is a strategy for those who wish to divide us and to make it appear there is no middle ground to listen, reason together, appreciate each other's world and each other's worries and fears, and come up with [possibly] imperfect solutions to try and make our lives more fair and more just."
If you follow social media, you might find yourself depressed by the way you and your beliefs--no matter whether you are liberal or conservative, White or Black, in favor of law and order or in favor of protestors--are trashed and ridiculed by others.
What to do with Confederate monuments
If you followed
social media and the news media, you might think that were basically two
positions on what to do about Confederate monuments and symbols. I was
struck recently by a poll done by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News (Video below). The poll asked people, "What should be done with Confederate monuments?" and they were given four options.
1. Completely remove and destroy them
2. Move them out of public squares into museums or on to private property
3. Leave them, but with a plaque that adds historical context
4. Leave everything as it is now
The most extreme positions, Nos. 1 and 4, got the least response.
10% chose option 1, completely remove and destroy them.
16% chose option 4, leave everything as it is now.
Almost three-fourths chose the less extreme options
31% favored moving them out of public squares into museums or private property
41% favored leaving them, but with a plaque
In other words, on a polarizing issue, as reporter Gerald Seib noted in the video, there is a large group of people choosing the more moderate responses. Americans have many points of view, but most are moderate. As Americans, we have more in common with each other than you might believe if you spend a lot of time in social media.
Another polarizing force driven by money: cable TV
Another bad place for people with moderate views to spend time is watching cable news. Fox News is the most popular cable TV channel, especially among conservatives and Republicans. On the other side are CNN and MSNBC, which appeal to liberals and Democrats, among others.
Again, these cable channels need you to spend lots of your time and attention on their broadcasts and websites to make money. They have to fill the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and keep people watching. What gets their attention and makes them watch? Images of violence, whether they are trying to show that demonstrators are lawless terrorists or that the police are fascist thugs. Violence grabs attention and sells advertising.
This divisiveness shows up in other news media as well, where even respected outlets have staked out positions that are "patriotic" or "resistance". Those tendencies make moderate people skeptical and undermine the media outlet's credibility even in investigations that are impeccably professional.
The apolitical profiteers
And we haven't even mentioned the completely apolitical actors whose only goal is to make money. Bad journalism, sensational headlines, clickbait, and outrageous lies attract people to click, if only to see if there might be some truth behind the headline. Sensationalism sells. It's a fantastically lucrative business. Always has been.
Cancel Culture
Two recent incidents involving
the New York Times suggest that liberals have become intolerant of any
viewpoints that conflict with their own. First, a group of Times
employees mobilized to demand the resignation
of an editor who approved publication of a conservative senator's
opinions. Then a conservative columnist on their staff resigned, saying
she had been harassed and bullied by "a far-left mob" that included her colleagues.
Into this breach stepped an all-star team of liberal opinion leaders and artists who published a letter in
Harper's magazine that "warned of a growing tide of illiberalism and a
weakening of 'our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in
favor of ideological conformity',” as described in the New York Times.
In other words, these liberals were worried that some of their fellow
liberals were becoming intolerant of anyone who expressed any ideas in
conflict with their own.
We need solidarity, not divisiveness
All of this polarization is heightened and exaggerated in an election year. It seems everyone we know is crazy. People I know and love and respect act like savages in social media, shouting at each other, insulting each other. This is behavior they would not engage in if they were face-to-face with their counterparts.
In the middle of an economic crisis of historic proportions, that is leaving people without enough food to feed their families, and a health crisis of historic proportions, we should be seeking ways to pull together, to work out our differences and work toward a common goal. As Americans, we share more common beliefs than the politicians want you to believe.
Dialogue, compromise, shared purpose. These should be our watchwords now. However, it is in the interest of various political actors to make us stake out a position on one side or another rather than listening to our counterparts. My social and professional circles are definitely in the liberal-Democrat echo chamber. And frankly, I am tired of hearing people rant against the White House and its supporters, even when I agree with them.
Listen, and listen some more
Get out of social media and have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. Don't try to persuade them that you are right. Find out what they think and feel and why they think and feel that way. After you have listened, listen some more. Then wait.
They might ask you what you think and why. Then maybe there will be a conversation rather than a shouting match.
No comments:
Post a Comment