Reader Blocks Me When I Ask for Examples
Name calling is a form of bullying that effectively cuts off reasonable conversation.
In my recent article, Instead of Advocating Destruction, Why Not Advocate Creation, I argued that tearing down white depictions of Jesus was misguided and counterproductive. My final paragraph summed up my thoughts:
“Christians know the historical Jesus was Jewish when he walked the earth, which meant he was most likely an olive-skinned, brown-haired Middle Eastern man. We believe the resurrected Jesus is no color, creator of all colors, equally available to all colors, and beyond consideration of color.”
The responses were mostly favorable, but one reader lashed out, calling me a racist. In her comments, she stated that illegal depictions of Jesus populated the public square all over the country, Christian art and signage filled public schools, and white Christians re-wrote history to depict Jesus as a white man.
She said a lot more, but it was mostly personal and had nothing to do with the article.
How should I respond?
I deliberated over how to respond, because I didn’t want to attack the reader personally and allow an opportunity for debate to deteriorate into name-calling. Responding to anger with anger only contributes to divisiveness. I finally replied by asking her to validate her statements with facts. I asked that she:
- Show me one illegal depiction of Jesus in the public square.
- Point to an example of Christian art and signage in public schools.
- Name the Christians she has come into contact with who don’t realize Jesus was a Jew.
I didn’t think it was unreasonable to want her to back up her statements, but evidently she did. It took her about one minute to delete her comments and block me.
This unwillingness to listen to other ideas and engage in discussion isn’t confined to the readers of a blog. It’s a problem that permeates our society from the top down.
Our elected officials resort to diatribe, name-calling and hate-filled speech. Many of them don’t attempt to listen, learn or understand an opposing point of view.
My Twitter feed is a steady diet of hostility toward “the other side,” whatever that side happens to be.
Even a virus has become politicized, to the detriment of common-sense discussions about masks, treatments, and how to best stop its spread. Do you ever hear anyone say, “Hey, I was wrong. Science is now pointing me in a different direction?”
No, we don’t hear this, because it would take humility and flexibility, two characteristics that are the antithesis of the pride and intransigence currently characterizing our conversations.
Name calling is a form of bullying that effectively cuts off reasonable communication. It reveals an inability or unwillingness to view issues without bringing personalities and prejudices into it.
Social media and news media are filled with rants, but the hostility goes beyond media. I’ve heard people say they cut off friends and family members because of different political opinions. One woman refused to speak to her parents for over a year because she is liberal and they are conversative.
This is a far cry from the way I grew up. My mother and father were on different sides of the political fence. My mother used to joke that she was going to the polls “to cancel out your father’s vote.” In high school debate clubs, friends faced off to argue different sides of an issue without any lasting hostilities. I’ve traveled with friends who were Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives. At the end of our trips, we remained friends.
Discussion is an opportunity to grow
If we can’t even navigate opposing points of view with the people we care about, how will we ever function in a diverse world of widely differing lifestyles and world views? Shouldn’t we look at diversity of opinion as an opportunity for growth, introspection, discussion and possibly change? We don’t win converts to our point of view by blocking those we disagree with or calling them racist.
Recognizing this problem, The National Institute for Civil Discourse started a program called Golden Rule 2020. It’s a program that calls on people to follow the Golden Rule in interactions. In other words, in our interactions with others, even with those we disagree with, we should try to build bridges of respect.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.”
Do we want to be people of light, bringing understanding and building bridges, or people of darkness who plant our feet in the ground and say “My way or the highway.”
Personal attacks, usually dispensed with a dose of self-righteousness, close off further discussion. Victims of the attack are either effectively muted or left sounding defensive. It’s hard to defend yourself against charges that are nebulous and subjective when facts are scorned and dismissed.
Open discussion of many major public questions has for some time now been taboo. We can’t open our mouths without being denounced as racists, misogynists, supremacists, imperialists or fascists. As for the media, they stand ready to trash anyone so designated. — Saul Bellow
Can we agree to disagree?
I’ve read plenty of articles I disagree with, even though I respect and admire a lot of those writers. Sometimes I don’t comment, and other times I offer a different point of view. I also admit that I’ve replied stupidly and emotionally at times. I’m human and subject to emotions and prejudices like everybody else. But I usually regret those kinds of comments, and at times I’ve apologized. I haven’t blocked the writers or refused to engage in discussion because I disagreed with them.
“The ability to debate differences reasonably, intelligently and open-mindedly and to compromise when it’s for the common good are the hallmarks of a civil society,” I wrote in Will America Be Able to Survive.
I like the Golden Rule idea. It encourages us to treat others the same way we want to be treated.
A free exchange of ideas is integral to a free society. We won’t always agree with each other, but a thoughtful debate carried out with respect and humility can go a long way toward building bridges and reaching solutions.
Maybe if we remembered to take life but not ourselves too seriously, to keep a sense of humor, to view each other with kindness, and to try to bring a little bit of light into the world, we wouldn’t be so divided.
To call somebody a racist without knowing anything about them, to shut off communication when somebody asks you to back up your arguments, or to paint everybody with the same broad brush if they happen to disagree with you are not conducive to building bridges.
“Instead of seeing how much pain I can dish out towards those I disagree with, or who I believe have done me wrong, I seek to follow the golden rule and use my words and behavior to create more of what the world needs — love, compassion, and connection.” ― Aspen Baker