As anyone who’s ever interacted with someone else knows, communicating with a fellow human can often be turbulent, with disagreements inevitably arising from different perspectives, values, and expectations. And as we’ve seen over the last decade or so, with the advent of social media, the ability to keep in touch with people from our past that we may have lost contact with otherwise, gives us the ability to hide behind a keyboard while we stay in touch with people we probably would have lost along the way.
On one hand, I find this is gratuitous, it’s nice to stay in loose contact with old school or work friends or travel, party, or adventure buddies, and know they are doing well in life. But on the other hand, I find with some of these relationships the familiarity of past friendships can sometimes breed contempt allowing disagreements on things like current events to escalate into verbal abuse, shouting matches (YOU KNOW- THE ALL CAPS REPLY), and intimidation literally in the blink of an eye, things that people would not say to someone face to face suddenly are ok online.
The original point quickly gets left in the dust as one or two participants in the discussion quickly veer off course, missing the whole point and degenerating to denigration and vilification. When I witness this, it’s a glaring indicator of a person’s distinct lack of personal awareness or ability to self-regulate, thus creating a chasm of distance and a lack of desire to communicate with said person who thinks this is a perfectly acceptable way to engage. It’s almost like they think if they can be louder and more aggressive that somehow means they win.
This is odd, especially if, like me, you don’t approach conversations as a thing to be won or lost.
I think this phenomenon underscores deeper issues in communication: the inability to engage with opposing views constructively or control oneself when faced with a different opinion. In my efforts to investigate this topic, it becomes evident that the problem lies not just in the actions of individuals, but also in the broader societal dynamics that shape our interactions. And the changing societal dynamic of communication for generations that were taught better manners when interacting with other people, the fact that they are so hateful and quick to lash out (I’m looking at you Boomers) can make your head spin.
Rather than engaging in reasoned or thought-out dialogue, by seeking to overpower their perceived detractors through volume and aggression reflects a failure to recognize the value of respectful discourse and the importance of listening to others. As if somehow being louder and more intimidating makes them the rightest right and only opinion to have.
These individuals often exhibit a propensity to hijack discussions and steer them off course, often towards irrational tangents fueled by emotion rather than reason. In doing so, they not only derail the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation but also demonstrate a disregard for the perspectives of others. It becomes an exercise in mental gymnastics and emotional control to retain the original point and keep the conversation on track. This hijacking of topic undermines the possibility of genuine understanding and mutual respect, as often the people with whom the aggressive responder is communicating “at” not “with” were merely attempting to start a conversation to discover thoughts and other perspectives on a topic, not to be called names and shouted over.
In an age where social media platforms amplify voices and facilitate instant mob mentality, individuals who express dissenting views risk facing swift and severe repercussions. In turn, creating an environment where conformity reigns supreme. Resulting in the outcasting “cancel culture” behaviour that we have witnessed this century, even though I hate it, I get it,and some of the people that have been “cancelled” deserved it, but it is so extreme.
In a watered down version, I do understand though, I have given enough of my time and energy trying to keep to “keep the peace” by “letting” people spout their ignorant b.s in my space and there are most definitely instances where I have chosen to turn away and not even have to deal with the aggressor, because, why? Delete, block, unfriend, remove. Life is too short to be dragged down by low-vibe communication that only serves the aggressor. It seems they operate from the toddler mentality of “any attention is good attention.”
Or maybe my lack of tolerance for these low vibe time wasters is an age thing. You live long enough to experience all sorts of situations and people, including humoring time wasters and the arrogant and ignorant, and you get to the point where you just ain’t doing it anymore.
In grappling with these dynamics, I attempt to consider the underlying factors that contribute to such behavior.
One key factor is the prevalence of echo chambers, where individuals surround themselves with like-minded individuals and shield themselves from differing views. In such environments, any challenge to prevailing beliefs is perceived as a threat, leading to defensive reactions and hostility towards opposing perspectives.
Additionally, the rise of tribalism in society has fostered an us-versus-them mentality, where individuals align themselves with particular ideologies or identity groups and view those outside their tribe with suspicion or hostility. This tribal mentality exacerbates conflicts and inhibits genuine dialogue by fostering division and distrust.
Amidst these challenges, and crazy as it may sound, I think it is crucial to cultivate a culture of empathy, humility, and intellectual curiosity. Rather than seeking to dominate or silence opposing views, individuals should strive to understand them, recognizing that diversity of thought enriches discourse and fosters intellectual growth. This requires active listening, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage with discomforting ideas. This is a huge ask and requires willing participants, of which, there is usually only one.
So is there a way to remove ourselves from the sticky ego trap of defensive and retaliatory interaction? It’s unnecessary and unwarranted, but so many of us just “suck it up” to keep the peace. But here’s a view: What if we just want peace? No big blowouts? No “putting people in their places” when boundaries are crossed. No time wasted on telling people how their “communication style” sucks and is entirely out of line?
I have a friend who is divorced but remains friendly with her ex and most of his family. Except for one particular aging member of her ex’s family, who thinks it’s perfectly fine to respond online with long rambling off-topic stories telling her she’s wrong, bringing up awful extreme examples of why (attempting the shock factor I imagine), and ending in calling her an idiot. She has removed him as much as she can from her online world, without confronting him or telling him off, as she does not see the point, to her it’s just the ramblings of a senile old man, doing his darndest to retain some sense of power in his ever decreasing world. (And he and his wife are big Trumpwaffles so there’s that). She still lets her children see this family member with their dad, because she appreciates that he is family to her children. But she is done with his misdirected anger and outbursts. After all, she says, they are divorced. There is nowhere that says she has to remain cordial with the entire family. And I have to admit, at first, I thought that was a bit rough, he’s just an old man and she should probably just humor him, but the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with her logic. Why should she have to put up with an angry old man? Proverbially dumping his angry rants all over her social media? It merely offers unspoken approval of his misogynist mentality. It’s her life, she gets to say who participates in it and who she participates with. Fair enough.
She doesn’t have to, so she doesn’t do it. She does use the situation as a teaching moment for her kids though, a how-not-to-disagree-with-people-you-are-related-to thing. And good for her. Bravo lady.
It seems completely foreign to people like her ex-family member, that fostering a culture of constructive criticism rather than abusive name-calling can promote accountability, inclusion, and growth while preserving the possibility of amicable interaction – agree to disagree and all that.
In conclusion, the tendency to out-yell, or insult others in response to disagreement reflects a failure of communication and a lack of compassion. With work, we can overcome tribalism, echo chambers, and cancel culture and build a society characterized by mutual understanding and cooperation. But we have to want to do that work.
And how do we start that conversation with the people who need it most?
Recent Comments