Why Civility Failed
The Real Problem With American Politics
Social Media Effects
Many people have suggested that social media is driving our divisions. There is some truth to this. When one only communicates online, it can increase misunderstandings. Language is sometimes unclear, especially if the writer has bad spelling, grammar, and uses internet abbreviations. When you cannot see the expression on one’s face nor hear the inflection in one’s voice, the words alone can be interpreted incorrectly. Is it satire? Is it a joke?
The problem is magnified even more when one is limited to 140 characters. It sometimes forces one to lie by omission. The truth is complex and nuanced. Simple slogans leave too much out. Words need context.
I have also observed people who make posts to social media espousing general statements to which there are many exceptions. I don’t argue with them; they are basically right and it is often impossible to list every potential exception to a general rule or proverb. I let a lot go. What I find strange is that others will argue with them, citing the exceptions to support their claim that the original statement is completely false, assuming the poster to be taking a harder position than they really are.
On rare occasions I will fall into the same trap, when the original statement is known to be commonly taken as an absolute that has hurt many in the past, but generally my citing of the exceptions is only to warn other readers of the nuance and is an invitation for the poster to clarify; I don’t take a hard contrary position.
Other times I assume everyone already knows the exceptions and I mention them only as a joke. Those that know me know how much I joke (or they used to).
Other times I am genuinely confused and concerned that I might be misinterpreting the statement. Instead of simply typing “huh?” I mention the exceptions so that the poster can better understand the source of my confusion and can respond accordingly. “Huh” usually never gets more than a repetition of the same thing I didn’t understand the first time; mentioning the exceptions is important.
In spoken conversation, I might sometimes repeat back a speaker’s statements with added exceptions in order to show that I was both listening and understood, as well as to keep myself engaged if they have begun to drift toward monologue.
None of this is arguing, but many people treat it as such and they become very defensive if anyone asks a question.
An old classmate once posted to her Facebook wall a meme about fairness and how coaches should treat children unequally to prepare them for the unfairness of life. I suspected that it was about coaches instilling the values of merit and hard work when it came to games instead of giving everyone equal trophies and not keeping score – in other words, being equal rather than unequal – but the way it was written reminded me more of my parents (and parents in general) punishing me for something not my fault and responding to my pleas with “Life isn’t fair!” If life is so unfair, shouldn’t we work to make it less unfair? It is truly perverse to add additional unfairness to our children just to prepare them for future unfairness, especially when such future unfairness might only exist to prepare them for even more unfairness. By that logic, why do we even have a justice system? Why not just allow criminals to run amok?
I asked a question to clarify, which I meant half-jokingly since I could also see how it might be taken the first way, and teasing parents for saying “life isn’t fair” is a common theme in comedy. She clarified, revealing that it was to be taken the first way, and I thanked her for clearing things up. I thought everything was still good between us, though she did express surprise that anyone could misunderstand the meaning, which seemed clear to her.
Weeks later, she posted a picture of a woman with a black spot on her hand. Apparently, she was trying to raise awareness about domestic violence and showing a black spot was a secret code that one was being abused. I immediately wondered what would happen when the abusers checked up on the Facebook posts of those who were being abused and saw the black spots. What would happen if the abusers had also come across the awareness campaign? What would happen if no one else but the abusers knew what it meant? How was showing a black spot any better than using words? I didn’t think that the woman depicted was herself being abused, but I was very confused about how the campaign was supposed to work. If I joined the movement and showed a spot to raise awareness, would people think that I was being abused? I could only see this leading to mass confusion. I was certainly very confused.
I pointed some of these issues out, hoping that I was wrong and would be corrected. Domestic abuse is a serious thing that in order to work towards a solution for, we must be honest about the shortfalls of supposed solutions. If one is going to jump into the debate or support an untested idea, one should expect questions and criticisms. At the same time, I was reminded of “The Curse of The Black Spot” from Doctor Who. I left a second comment with a YouTube link to the trailer to keep the conversation light.
Later, I saw that she had responded to both of my comments. To the first, she asked me why I always overthink everything. Always? She also told me to read the article. To the second, she told me that the curse was completely different. This was obvious. I pointed out I only meant that that’s what people would think of when they saw the spots, perhaps calling attention to them in front of the abusers by talking about Doctor Who. Then she told me to read the article and that the conversation was over.
Article? I was unaware that there was an article link. Most memes are stand-alone statements with no links anywhere. Others are headlines that link to long articles, but the difference is not clear unless one goes looking for a link. Without clarification of what the headline is about, why would I ever care to read an entire article? If one posts something to their wall, they obviously want to promote something. They should be happy to answer questions in order to entice others to want to learn more. In this case, the only link I found was to a Facebook page that also explained NOTHING. Several others had left comments there asking exactly the same questions I had. It wasn’t just me!
I had taken her “conversation over” comment to mean that she didn’t want to explain how it worked to me when I could just read an article and save her the trouble, but since I could not find the article I thought she would at least answer where I might find it. Once I had read it and understood it, I thought I would leave another comment not for her but for all the others reading the post that must have the same questions. I wanted to help. I tried to ask her where I could find the article, but I found that I could no longer post comments to the thread. I still don’t understand the black spots to this day.
I let both of these issues drop and planned to move on as if nothing had happened, restoring our friendship by treating her nicely, avoiding contradicting her, and continuing to comment on her other posts. I let her think I was a dummy and decided never to bring up the past. Weeks later she posted something about food service. In the past, this subject has united us because we have both dealt with annoying customers and those that falsely claim food allergies just to make sure something is made fresh. It requires a tremendous effort, forces other customers to wait longer, and most places really aren’t equipped for it such that we can be absolutely sure the food is 100% free of allergen. This post was about whether restaurants should charge for birthday party cakes that were brought in from elsewhere. She simply posted the link to the article without any hint of what her position was. To be on the safe side, I read the whole article. I saw several arguments both for and against. Returning to her post, I saw another person had left a comment in support of bringing in cakes. I did not take a stand, but instead merely pointed out some of the potential problems that come with charging for outside cakes or refusing them outright. She immediately responded to my comment (while ignoring the other person’s comment), scolding me for not reading the article and she took a strong stand against allowing outside cakes in. Her points were very valid, but so were mine. I wasn’t arguing with her. I hadn’t even taken a stand. I didn’t even know until then what her position was! I wanted to tell her that I agreed with her concerns and that I had read the article, but instead I decided to drop it.
Clearly, dropping the earlier issues and not talking about it did nothing to fix the rift between us. She must have thought I hadn’t read the article because she still thought I hadn’t read the others. Is this a situation wherein I should bring up the past so we can work through our difficulties? I didn’t want to lose any friends unnecessarily even if we were never especially close. I didn’t really have any friends to spare.
Many months later, I thought she might have cooled off and I allowed myself to comment on her posts again. After all, what is the point of being friends if we never talk? She posted something about craft fabrics made to look like dragon scales and I said that I wished I was a dragon. She never responded, but I thought that I had restored good will. Later she posted a video about etiquette in tipping with no hint of what side of the issue she fell on. I have never liked tipping. If the price of service isn’t clearly marked on the menu how am I supposed to know how much or who to give it to? I primarily eat at fast food places and they do not even allow tips, so I’m not used to it. There is no official authority on tipping and so disagreements ensue. I was always taught that it was optional. It is only because I have heard through unofficial channels that waitstaff should be given 15% of the bill that I even know about the phenomenon at all. Just recently I heard someone tell me it was now 18% and I realized that I could have persisted paying 15% for decades without knowing any better. I also realized that someone could always lie and tell me it was 50% in order to squeeze more out of me. There is no central authority! Still, I manage because it isn’t big deal and I like to support my servers.
The video made it a big deal. It said that the proper amount to give waitstaff is now 20%. It listed countless other industries in which tipping existed that I was completely unaware of. Each employee-type had to be given a different percentage. Taxi drivers should get 15% but gas station attendants should get zero. Even independent taxi drivers who keep 100% of what they make anyways? Even gas station attendants working out in the cold? Who makes this stuff up? Who are they to tell others what to do? It was so preposterously over-the-top silly and impossible to keep track of that I began to suspect it was a parody. It was absolutely comical! I literally laughed out loud. The video ended with the admonition that those who couldn’t afford to tip should stay home. Whatever anyone’s position on tipping in general, everyone should agree that this video took things way too far. Whatever one’s position on the video, everyone should at least understand why normal people would feel overwhelmed and confused by it. It was obviously a joke.
All I said was “Now they’ve taken things too far,” thus implying that things had not gone too far before, and not giving any hint of my true feelings about tipping in general. Instead of an “LOL,” or instead of partially agreeing with me on some minor point while upholding the video as a whole, she simply told me that it was actually not going too far. I wasn’t sure if she was joking or not. With anyone else, I would have kept the conversation going, assuming she was fooling around, but I could not take that chance with her. I dropped it. I don’t talk to her anymore.
Social media is trouble. Conversing in person, we cannot hang up on or “block” each other, and so one can continue their thought until the other person understands that they initially misinterpreted (at least in theory). In person, it is also easier to explain one’s position than simply link to another page that might not still be the same when you left it (especially if the site is doing A/B testing or is engaged in stealth editing). Watching a video together allows us to gauge each other’s reactions in real time before the ending, working out differences together before they build up to insurmountable levels. None of the problems I had with my old classmate would have been quite the same in person. Get off the computer!
True friendship is dying. I still remember the old days when I had to call people on the phone or meet them in person. It forced me to focus on a few, close friends instead of being superficial friends with dozens of people. When Myspace became popular in 2006, I noticed that my friends had less and less time for me and spent more and more time online. Then Facebook arrived. Instead of doing things together, or talking about our lives, all my friends wanted to do was post unoriginal memes and spout off on topics they knew nothing about. With all my relationships superficial, it was easier just to ditch toxic people and move on than try to lovingly work through our differences.
It also gradually became harder and harder to even get in contact with them. Instead of giving me phone numbers, people would invite me to join Facebook’s phone system, so we could call each other by name, but only if logged in. What if I was driving and needed directions? What if I didn’t want to drag my laptop around with me or always be logged in where I could be distracted by updates? What if I got banned? I’d have no friends at all. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
I read that at one time more people got their news from Facebook than any other source. What does Facebook have to do with news? I would no sooner get my news from Facebook than buy my shoes and underwear through a Taco Bell drive-through. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
I also noticed that a lot of small businesses did not have their own websites, but had Facebook pages. At first, this was fine, but then Facebook changed its settings so that only those logged in could see these pages. This means that these small businesses can’t connect with customers who are not Facebook users. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
Furthermore, social media platforms have been known to promote the most divisive posts, since these are the ones that generate the most views and greatest response. It creates a feedback loop for the worst elements in our culture, radicalizing impressionable minds.
In recent years, I have even seen evidence of stealth censorship of particular viewpoints on YouTube. I believe it has happened to me, and my channel was primarily apolitical. There is nothing that makes people crazier than thinking that the platform itself is biased and they aren’t even being given a fair hearing. Rejection is one thing, but to not even be heard is another.
How can one know they are being heard? In person, this is obvious. Online, it is much less so. How do you know you aren’t wasting your time writing long, thoughtful analyses of current events that no one will ever see? How do I know that the few responses I get aren’t from bots? Seriously, at least eighty percent of the responses I get do not fit my original comment. It happens whether I am agreeing, disagreeing, or just making a side observation. It happens with politics, religion, science, literature reviews, and more. I am so badly misunderstood so often that I feel like I’m talking with an AI. Maybe I am.
Similar questions could be asked about dating sites. I was on three dating sites for three years and only got two dates. Am I just that unappealing? Or were none of my messages getting through? Was my profile even being seen? We really need to stop relying on the internet to connect with others and get to know our neighbors in person. It worked for thousands of years.
I’ve also noticed that paper applications are hard to find. Nearly all companies I inquire at tell me they only hire online. Unfortunately, those designing their software are so incompetent, that I am sometimes unable to fill out the forms. The dates might be in the wrong format or the selection I want is underneath another element. Because I never get to talk to a person, I never find out whether I am doing something wrong or if my resume needs work. All I know is that I don’t get hired.
One website told me to go to the individual franchise owner for an application, but the individual franchise owner told me to go to the corporate website. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing! If you’ve ever had trouble finding good help, it might be the hiring system you’re using.
The internet might be the most important and helpful technology since the printing press, but it is not without its problems.
The problem is magnified even more when one is limited to 140 characters. It sometimes forces one to lie by omission. The truth is complex and nuanced. Simple slogans leave too much out. Words need context.
I have also observed people who make posts to social media espousing general statements to which there are many exceptions. I don’t argue with them; they are basically right and it is often impossible to list every potential exception to a general rule or proverb. I let a lot go. What I find strange is that others will argue with them, citing the exceptions to support their claim that the original statement is completely false, assuming the poster to be taking a harder position than they really are.
On rare occasions I will fall into the same trap, when the original statement is known to be commonly taken as an absolute that has hurt many in the past, but generally my citing of the exceptions is only to warn other readers of the nuance and is an invitation for the poster to clarify; I don’t take a hard contrary position.
Other times I assume everyone already knows the exceptions and I mention them only as a joke. Those that know me know how much I joke (or they used to).
Other times I am genuinely confused and concerned that I might be misinterpreting the statement. Instead of simply typing “huh?” I mention the exceptions so that the poster can better understand the source of my confusion and can respond accordingly. “Huh” usually never gets more than a repetition of the same thing I didn’t understand the first time; mentioning the exceptions is important.
In spoken conversation, I might sometimes repeat back a speaker’s statements with added exceptions in order to show that I was both listening and understood, as well as to keep myself engaged if they have begun to drift toward monologue.
None of this is arguing, but many people treat it as such and they become very defensive if anyone asks a question.
An old classmate once posted to her Facebook wall a meme about fairness and how coaches should treat children unequally to prepare them for the unfairness of life. I suspected that it was about coaches instilling the values of merit and hard work when it came to games instead of giving everyone equal trophies and not keeping score – in other words, being equal rather than unequal – but the way it was written reminded me more of my parents (and parents in general) punishing me for something not my fault and responding to my pleas with “Life isn’t fair!” If life is so unfair, shouldn’t we work to make it less unfair? It is truly perverse to add additional unfairness to our children just to prepare them for future unfairness, especially when such future unfairness might only exist to prepare them for even more unfairness. By that logic, why do we even have a justice system? Why not just allow criminals to run amok?
I asked a question to clarify, which I meant half-jokingly since I could also see how it might be taken the first way, and teasing parents for saying “life isn’t fair” is a common theme in comedy. She clarified, revealing that it was to be taken the first way, and I thanked her for clearing things up. I thought everything was still good between us, though she did express surprise that anyone could misunderstand the meaning, which seemed clear to her.
Weeks later, she posted a picture of a woman with a black spot on her hand. Apparently, she was trying to raise awareness about domestic violence and showing a black spot was a secret code that one was being abused. I immediately wondered what would happen when the abusers checked up on the Facebook posts of those who were being abused and saw the black spots. What would happen if the abusers had also come across the awareness campaign? What would happen if no one else but the abusers knew what it meant? How was showing a black spot any better than using words? I didn’t think that the woman depicted was herself being abused, but I was very confused about how the campaign was supposed to work. If I joined the movement and showed a spot to raise awareness, would people think that I was being abused? I could only see this leading to mass confusion. I was certainly very confused.
I pointed some of these issues out, hoping that I was wrong and would be corrected. Domestic abuse is a serious thing that in order to work towards a solution for, we must be honest about the shortfalls of supposed solutions. If one is going to jump into the debate or support an untested idea, one should expect questions and criticisms. At the same time, I was reminded of “The Curse of The Black Spot” from Doctor Who. I left a second comment with a YouTube link to the trailer to keep the conversation light.
Later, I saw that she had responded to both of my comments. To the first, she asked me why I always overthink everything. Always? She also told me to read the article. To the second, she told me that the curse was completely different. This was obvious. I pointed out I only meant that that’s what people would think of when they saw the spots, perhaps calling attention to them in front of the abusers by talking about Doctor Who. Then she told me to read the article and that the conversation was over.
Article? I was unaware that there was an article link. Most memes are stand-alone statements with no links anywhere. Others are headlines that link to long articles, but the difference is not clear unless one goes looking for a link. Without clarification of what the headline is about, why would I ever care to read an entire article? If one posts something to their wall, they obviously want to promote something. They should be happy to answer questions in order to entice others to want to learn more. In this case, the only link I found was to a Facebook page that also explained NOTHING. Several others had left comments there asking exactly the same questions I had. It wasn’t just me!
I had taken her “conversation over” comment to mean that she didn’t want to explain how it worked to me when I could just read an article and save her the trouble, but since I could not find the article I thought she would at least answer where I might find it. Once I had read it and understood it, I thought I would leave another comment not for her but for all the others reading the post that must have the same questions. I wanted to help. I tried to ask her where I could find the article, but I found that I could no longer post comments to the thread. I still don’t understand the black spots to this day.
I let both of these issues drop and planned to move on as if nothing had happened, restoring our friendship by treating her nicely, avoiding contradicting her, and continuing to comment on her other posts. I let her think I was a dummy and decided never to bring up the past. Weeks later she posted something about food service. In the past, this subject has united us because we have both dealt with annoying customers and those that falsely claim food allergies just to make sure something is made fresh. It requires a tremendous effort, forces other customers to wait longer, and most places really aren’t equipped for it such that we can be absolutely sure the food is 100% free of allergen. This post was about whether restaurants should charge for birthday party cakes that were brought in from elsewhere. She simply posted the link to the article without any hint of what her position was. To be on the safe side, I read the whole article. I saw several arguments both for and against. Returning to her post, I saw another person had left a comment in support of bringing in cakes. I did not take a stand, but instead merely pointed out some of the potential problems that come with charging for outside cakes or refusing them outright. She immediately responded to my comment (while ignoring the other person’s comment), scolding me for not reading the article and she took a strong stand against allowing outside cakes in. Her points were very valid, but so were mine. I wasn’t arguing with her. I hadn’t even taken a stand. I didn’t even know until then what her position was! I wanted to tell her that I agreed with her concerns and that I had read the article, but instead I decided to drop it.
Clearly, dropping the earlier issues and not talking about it did nothing to fix the rift between us. She must have thought I hadn’t read the article because she still thought I hadn’t read the others. Is this a situation wherein I should bring up the past so we can work through our difficulties? I didn’t want to lose any friends unnecessarily even if we were never especially close. I didn’t really have any friends to spare.
Many months later, I thought she might have cooled off and I allowed myself to comment on her posts again. After all, what is the point of being friends if we never talk? She posted something about craft fabrics made to look like dragon scales and I said that I wished I was a dragon. She never responded, but I thought that I had restored good will. Later she posted a video about etiquette in tipping with no hint of what side of the issue she fell on. I have never liked tipping. If the price of service isn’t clearly marked on the menu how am I supposed to know how much or who to give it to? I primarily eat at fast food places and they do not even allow tips, so I’m not used to it. There is no official authority on tipping and so disagreements ensue. I was always taught that it was optional. It is only because I have heard through unofficial channels that waitstaff should be given 15% of the bill that I even know about the phenomenon at all. Just recently I heard someone tell me it was now 18% and I realized that I could have persisted paying 15% for decades without knowing any better. I also realized that someone could always lie and tell me it was 50% in order to squeeze more out of me. There is no central authority! Still, I manage because it isn’t big deal and I like to support my servers.
The video made it a big deal. It said that the proper amount to give waitstaff is now 20%. It listed countless other industries in which tipping existed that I was completely unaware of. Each employee-type had to be given a different percentage. Taxi drivers should get 15% but gas station attendants should get zero. Even independent taxi drivers who keep 100% of what they make anyways? Even gas station attendants working out in the cold? Who makes this stuff up? Who are they to tell others what to do? It was so preposterously over-the-top silly and impossible to keep track of that I began to suspect it was a parody. It was absolutely comical! I literally laughed out loud. The video ended with the admonition that those who couldn’t afford to tip should stay home. Whatever anyone’s position on tipping in general, everyone should agree that this video took things way too far. Whatever one’s position on the video, everyone should at least understand why normal people would feel overwhelmed and confused by it. It was obviously a joke.
All I said was “Now they’ve taken things too far,” thus implying that things had not gone too far before, and not giving any hint of my true feelings about tipping in general. Instead of an “LOL,” or instead of partially agreeing with me on some minor point while upholding the video as a whole, she simply told me that it was actually not going too far. I wasn’t sure if she was joking or not. With anyone else, I would have kept the conversation going, assuming she was fooling around, but I could not take that chance with her. I dropped it. I don’t talk to her anymore.
Social media is trouble. Conversing in person, we cannot hang up on or “block” each other, and so one can continue their thought until the other person understands that they initially misinterpreted (at least in theory). In person, it is also easier to explain one’s position than simply link to another page that might not still be the same when you left it (especially if the site is doing A/B testing or is engaged in stealth editing). Watching a video together allows us to gauge each other’s reactions in real time before the ending, working out differences together before they build up to insurmountable levels. None of the problems I had with my old classmate would have been quite the same in person. Get off the computer!
True friendship is dying. I still remember the old days when I had to call people on the phone or meet them in person. It forced me to focus on a few, close friends instead of being superficial friends with dozens of people. When Myspace became popular in 2006, I noticed that my friends had less and less time for me and spent more and more time online. Then Facebook arrived. Instead of doing things together, or talking about our lives, all my friends wanted to do was post unoriginal memes and spout off on topics they knew nothing about. With all my relationships superficial, it was easier just to ditch toxic people and move on than try to lovingly work through our differences.
It also gradually became harder and harder to even get in contact with them. Instead of giving me phone numbers, people would invite me to join Facebook’s phone system, so we could call each other by name, but only if logged in. What if I was driving and needed directions? What if I didn’t want to drag my laptop around with me or always be logged in where I could be distracted by updates? What if I got banned? I’d have no friends at all. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
I read that at one time more people got their news from Facebook than any other source. What does Facebook have to do with news? I would no sooner get my news from Facebook than buy my shoes and underwear through a Taco Bell drive-through. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
I also noticed that a lot of small businesses did not have their own websites, but had Facebook pages. At first, this was fine, but then Facebook changed its settings so that only those logged in could see these pages. This means that these small businesses can’t connect with customers who are not Facebook users. Why would anybody give one company that much power?
Furthermore, social media platforms have been known to promote the most divisive posts, since these are the ones that generate the most views and greatest response. It creates a feedback loop for the worst elements in our culture, radicalizing impressionable minds.
In recent years, I have even seen evidence of stealth censorship of particular viewpoints on YouTube. I believe it has happened to me, and my channel was primarily apolitical. There is nothing that makes people crazier than thinking that the platform itself is biased and they aren’t even being given a fair hearing. Rejection is one thing, but to not even be heard is another.
How can one know they are being heard? In person, this is obvious. Online, it is much less so. How do you know you aren’t wasting your time writing long, thoughtful analyses of current events that no one will ever see? How do I know that the few responses I get aren’t from bots? Seriously, at least eighty percent of the responses I get do not fit my original comment. It happens whether I am agreeing, disagreeing, or just making a side observation. It happens with politics, religion, science, literature reviews, and more. I am so badly misunderstood so often that I feel like I’m talking with an AI. Maybe I am.
Similar questions could be asked about dating sites. I was on three dating sites for three years and only got two dates. Am I just that unappealing? Or were none of my messages getting through? Was my profile even being seen? We really need to stop relying on the internet to connect with others and get to know our neighbors in person. It worked for thousands of years.
I’ve also noticed that paper applications are hard to find. Nearly all companies I inquire at tell me they only hire online. Unfortunately, those designing their software are so incompetent, that I am sometimes unable to fill out the forms. The dates might be in the wrong format or the selection I want is underneath another element. Because I never get to talk to a person, I never find out whether I am doing something wrong or if my resume needs work. All I know is that I don’t get hired.
One website told me to go to the individual franchise owner for an application, but the individual franchise owner told me to go to the corporate website. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing! If you’ve ever had trouble finding good help, it might be the hiring system you’re using.
The internet might be the most important and helpful technology since the printing press, but it is not without its problems.