The new year is traditionally a time for resolutions. I have set myself one and I’m hoping to persuade some of you to join me – how we might usefully interact on social media.
I’m very struck by how divided politically we are as a nation, perhaps stoked by mainstream media, and certainly exacerbated by interactions on social media. Particularly now on X (formerly Twitter), the interaction between opposing views is often a slanging match. It’s observable how quickly an interchange can deteriorate into insults after only two or three comments. The very tone of the debate is toxic and littered with name-calling.
How social media fuels engaging in toxicity
Just recently, on a Guardian report he disagreed with, Lee Anderson MP commented: “They will print anything to appease their pearl clutching, namby pamby, avocado eating, soya milk drinking, non binary, Palestinian flag waving, taking the knee, rape gang denying readership.” Encouraging respectful dialogue?
On social media we sometimes tend to view ourselves as more adept and smarter than the people we interact with. We respond with what we consider a devastatingly witty riposte. Insults are traded and people are blocked. Sometimes we go away relatively happy; often we just go away frustrated, and nobody has learned from the interaction.
Yet, the reality is that the people we may loftily think of as ‘stupid’ or ‘below us’ have a vote that counts the same as ours.
The problem for a liberal like me
The mainstream press seems to be heavily biased in favour of a right-wing agenda, and the popular tabloids in promoting a level of anger in their readership. I check the BBC morning summary of front-page headlines every day to see what the papers are leading on. Try it for a couple of weeks and note the number of times, particularly the Mail and Express, lead with a headline about ‘anger’ or ‘fury’. If you look at these articles in more detail, it’s not often clear who exactly is angry or furious.
Check too how these articles often quote a questionable source. It’s sometimes an unnamed ‘expert’ or ‘boffin’, or an unchallenged quote from a politician whose wisdom on that particular issue is open to question, but the dubiousness of the source often gets lost and is perceived as fact.
Calling someone who is influenced by this propaganda an ‘idiot’, or similar, is not going to change their minds. Hurling insults and looking down on people is perhaps not the best way to start a dialogue.
What can we do on social media instead?
We can bemoan that the focus of the mainstream media seems so loaded and biased but setting up rival media and building an audience is a major undertaking. (However, this may be changing. The Bylines Network was founded to publish well-written, fact-based articles outside the control of press barons.)
My thinking is that we can all help the cause by converting people individually. I often use the apocryphal story of the child throwing washed-up starfish back into the sea. When challenged by an adult that there were too many washed-up creatures to make a difference, the child replied: “It made a difference for that one.”
We can all try to change the thinking of one person. We can start to move away from putting people down, to starting genuine one-to-one conversations and constructive debate. We need to recognise the challenge and respectfully help those we consider ‘duped’ to reflect on their worldview.
A dear friend of mine who has thought deeply about this said to me recently that those of a liberal/left-wing position are too quick to shout down people we disagree with, calling them ‘thick’ or similar. She suggested that mocking them simply causes them to ‘double down’ on their views.
In her view, a party like Reform is more adept at appearing to take such concerns seriously. Mainstream parties risk losing ground to Reform by giving such voters the impression that their concerns are being ignored and that they are stupid to think the way they do.
How to be the change you wish to see on social media
Maybe we need to consider how we create better dialogue with those we fundamentally disagree with.
Firstly, we can address others with a level of respect, however we feel about their views. Nothing is gained by making someone feel stupid.
Secondly, we can critically examine our own opinions, and check that our own beliefs and prejudices are soundly based. On more than one occasion I have done a search to ‘prove someone wrong’ or to prove the correctness of my own views, only to find that my view is not as well supported by fact as I have previously believed. It’s important that we challenge our own nostrums as readily as we challenge the ones we disagree with.
Dale Carnegie famously wrote: “Never tell someone they are wrong” and encouraged us to say instead: “Let’s look at the facts together”. This was published in 1936 and still has value today.
Another key idea I suggest is to ask questions rather than to make statements. The LBC presenter James O’Brien in his book How to be Right lays out this approach in detail with examples from his programme. The intent is to challenge respectfully, make the believer do the work, and to avoid beating people over the head with our data before asking for theirs. It’s about encouraging enquiry instead of provoking defensiveness. Equally too we should genuinely weigh up data that they can provide. It may be me who needs to change my view.
Let’s remember to ‘criticise arguments, not the individual’. Let’s not make debates personal.
When it’s time to put our view, ‘Here’s-what-I-see’ is more powerful than ‘whataboutery’. Our argument will be less persuasive if it creates defensiveness or antagonism. Keep the tone respectful and agree to disagree agreeably.
Our aim should always be to keep the communication channel open and not alienate someone through attempts to ‘own’ them. I’m setting myself the challenge of changing the mindset of one person this year by adopting this approach, and encourage you to try and do the same.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
