Civility, or a Lack Thereof: Regaining the Ability to Interact with Respect

Hi everyone! Welcome back to the blog, which I have not posted on in a month. Whoops! Hope y'all are having a great summer. This post is gonna fall back into the vein of political/societal commentary, so if that's interesting to you, read on!

(By the way, if you're looking for music, check out The Police! I've been listening to them a ton recently; Canary in a Coalmine is fantastic).

As always, I'm gonna try not to express any strong bias in any direction; however, if you think you notice any evidence of bias or political leaning, please remember that these opinions are my own. This topic is extraordinarily bipartisan, and just about all of the problems I describe in this article are exhibited equally by both sides of the political spectrum.

Today's topic: civil discourse! I've been thinking about it a lot lately, especially in the wake of Roe v. Wade and further discussion of President Biden's reelection chances. I've also had my fair share of experience with non-civil discourse, as I attend a high school, which is just about the only requirement for interacting with people that have no desire to actually listen or understand (not calling anyone out, but you guys know what I mean. I'm sure some of you have had conversations with other students that feel pointless).

The most disturbing aspect of this problem to me is that nobody even considers approaching people with respect; in their mind, if someone can hold a view opposite of theirs, they are immediately undeserving of respect, kindness, or basic decency.

I'll give you a very, very sensationalized example: Ben Shapiro's YouTube videos. I don't think Ben Shapiro is entirely wrong about everything, nor do I think that he should be revered as some sort of political genius. Regardless, he should not be praised for his endless railing against President Biden. I'm not talking about his policy; a 9.2% inflation rate is certainly deserving of criticism. Shapiro not only attacks Biden's policy, but also his personal integrity. He mercilessly makes fun of his old age, perceived "dementia", speech impediment, and family members in a way that does not connect to his policy whatsoever. Shapiro devotes entire videos to personal attacks on Biden, with no intent of criticizing his policy (although there is plenty of that).

Now, don't take this as me saying teasing is all bad. Of course, public figures will always be made fun of to some degree, especially the most prominent figure in the United States; where I take offense is when someone goes out of their way to attack the character of someone simply because they disagree with them. Admittedly, I did not watch Ben Shapiro particularly often during Trump's administration, but I can tell you right now that, while Shapiro did provide some level of criticism against Trump's policy, he certainly did not attack him personally to the same degree as Biden. This is especially shocking because Trump is, by every measure, a far less moral, upstanding individual than Biden; but to Shapiro, Biden's policy fully justifies his merciless attacks.

I don't think Biden cares about Shapiro, and I certainly don't think this example is particularly significant in the grand scheme of politics. But it does lay out a telling narrative: people are much, much more inclined to be immediately unkind to people that they disagree with. This is the problem, and it stems from a generally increased amount of division and hatred in America, which itself stems from every person's belief that they are right, and you are wrong, and therefore evil, or are somehow plotting the demise of democracy or something crazy like that.

Having participated in debate for 3 years now (both formally and informally), I've met plenty of people that I've agreed with, and far more that I have strongly disagreed with. Even if someone holds 90% of the same values as me, there will always be a point on which we cannot agree.

And you know what? That's fine!

The thing that makes humans interesting is their capacity for individual thought. Inventions, technologies, system of government, systems of society, relationships, revolutions, and every other thing that a human figured out they could do was a direct result of their capacity for individual thought. With this capacity comes inevitable difference between one another, which, once again, is great. So why do we look upon differences in opinion with such disgust?

I'll give you another example, from another right-wing content creator: Steven Crowder, made famous by his "change my mind" series, which promotes civil debate on highly controversial topics. From abortion to gun laws to hate speech, Crowder will discuss anything, and the most important thing is that he will discuss it with kindness and respect for the other person. Unfortunately, I would say about 75% of participants in these videos enter into conversations with Crowder with absolutely no intention of actually understanding Crowder's position; instead, they seek to deride Crowder by disrespecting his beliefs and his character, while spouting their own argument (in a typically incomprehensible fashion, I might add). This also perfectly demonstrates people who immediately jump to disrespect and unkindness, with information other than Crowder's general belief about a topic. So, about 75% of these videos consist of Crowder attempting to (respectfully) decipher an argument while the other person hurls insults, allegations, and general disrespect at him.

The encouraging (and obvious) part is that the 25% of participants that actually do show respect tend to yield videos full of productive conversation. No one seeks to "win" the argument or tear down the other member, but both seek instead to understand the other's point of view. The first step to civil discourse is always kindness and respect.

Want an even more relevant example? Look no further than Roe v. Wade! People who disagreed with the decision chose not to question the Supreme Court's authority, or their interpretation of the Constitution. No, of course not! Why carefully and logically dissect the situation when you can instead wish that the concurring Justices would "f****** burn in hell", or "never experience peace in their lives again"?

Seriously, I was disgusted by some of the reactions to that news on both sides. Liberals decided that the concurring Justices were somehow national traitors when they did not, in actuality, make a ruling on the legality of abortion; conservatives directed smug look after smug look at liberals, with few attempts to actually explain this distinction, and why it matters. In this situation, the "losers" of this situation were certainly the main source of such horrible behavior, but the "loser" changes by the day, and both sides are equally guilty.

I'll briefly address a common argument I've heard, especially in regards to controversial topics. An increasingly common belief nowadays is that people "have the right" to get angry due to their personal connection to a topic. And, of course, this is true, until that right impedes your ability to have a civil discussion about it. If all national decision-making was based off of the beliefs of those who are right next to any given issue, then all decisions would be dictated by a very small minority that does not hold consistent opinions about all topics. Regardless of anyone's personal connection to a topic, that connection does not make your opinion more or less valid than that of other people, as long as all opinions are informed.

So, the bottom line: if you can't converse about something without allowing anger to cloud that conversation, then you should reevaluate how you view the validity of others' opinions. No, of course not all opinions are valid, but all informed opinions are. Approach conversation with others with respect, and maybe they'll do the same. If everyone in the country decided to actually be nice to one another in our conversations, I guarantee you we'd get a whole lot more done. Kindness leads to civil discourse, which leads to progress!

Sorry, that got a little off topic, but you get the point.

So, how do we go about changing the mentality of an entire society? Well, it starts with the people we hear the most from: public figures, especially members of government.

I've provided numerous examples now of members of the general public attacking either governmental members or other citizens. Ironically, the most common examples occur within our own government, as members of Congress show an inability to compromise or even have civil discussions. Every week, we get a new personal attack on some senator, which of course has no relation whatsoever to any actual congressional action. As unfortunate as it may be, these elected officials set the standards for how the rest of the public should engage with one another, and right now that standard is on the floor.

Alas, I have no idea how to change the behaviors of especially stubborn people; I do know that these people represent us, whether we like it or not, and if we want anything to change, it has to start with the people. So enter into conversations with kindness, respect, and tolerance as your first priorities, and actively seek to understand the perspectives of others. Change is possible, and it begins with us!

Hope y'all found that to be mildly interesting in some form or another. No clue when I'll post again; we'll see what piques my interest. For now, have a safe and exceptional summer!

Emory