3 Things Social Media Users Should Stop Saying
Whether we like it or not, social media is a central place for discourse. What we say to others behind a computer screen is vitally important. The videos we share and the political opinions we express are open for judgement and criticism online. For the most part, I see many people who even ask for opinions on specific issues from other users.
Through my engagement with others on social media websites, I saw how easily a discussion between two strangers could escalate to ad hominem attacks or lousy trolling that culminated with people with hurt feelings or people saying offensive remarks.
Before going forward with the online habits that we need to cease, what is important to note is the distinction between self-care and complacency. If you find the need to leave a discussion because your needs are being dismissed or attacked or you need to avoid triggers, please do so. This is an act of self-care and is not to be equated with complacency.
The malice I witnessed online made me re-think some of the phrases many students use online when the subject matter is overtly political. Here are just some of the few phrases that we should abandon in the year of 2017 and what it means when we do employ these phrases.
1. “I don’t want to say anything because I don’t want to offend people.”
Over the course of this week, I thought about how it is that people avoid conversations altogether. This is not a new phenomenon. Just this week alone, I have seen several comments that are always something among the lines of saying “I don’t want to be under attack” for my views.
Although this is coming from a sincere or well-intentioned place, it is negating the potential for discussion. Navigating difficult or sensitive topics will always be difficult but everyone has the ability to transverse these topics. The most important part is to be aware of the language we use and consider who it is that you are speaking to. Our political views and the language we use to express those views have serious implication in other people’s lives. We should remain mindful of this point.
We should not refuse potential discussion or debate by negating the fact that language can come off as violent. Non-violent communication is an especially important means of engaging in civil debate without the worries of ad hominem attacks being a result. The most important part is to acknowledge that every individual has needs and when people get upset, that is a very real response which brings us to phrase #2.
2. “People need to stop being offended.”
I had a unique experience this week as I saw another user ask for opinions on a specific video. After commenting my viewpoint on the issues the video was raising, I saw some comments made later on in the day that I began to engage with. I quickly realized that not many people know how to communicate or hold a civil debate.
The claim that people need to stop being offended was not directed at me but I responded by saying that it wasn’t that other people were the problem but the necessity of using a common language in order to have productive discussions with others.
What is wrong with the phrase “people need to stop being offended” is that it dismisses the emotional responses that your language raised from other users. Instead of listening to the criticisms that others are raising, it is avoiding the responses that your language had onto others. It is always difficult to receive criticism but it is necessary to listen to what others have to say without always thinking your are completely right.
Everything you say online or in person is your responsibility, and others can hold you accountable for it. No person can navigate the world saying whatever they want to say, at least not without repercussions. This is because rhetoric or language can be violent and can be hurtful to others. Most people have the mentality online that they are entitled to their opinions in a way that potential criticism is effaced. However, it is the exact opposite. When we engage in any kind of discussion with someone else, both parties are accountable for what they say.
If you find yourself in a position where others have misinterpreted you, explain that it was not your intention and apologize for the effects that your words had. It is better to acknowledge the implications that your language raised rather than to out-right deny accountability. When people are hurt, your original intentions at the time do not matter. What matters is getting the discussion back on track and you can’t do that unless both people are on the same page.
3. “Well we’ll never agree, so…”
Considering that we uphold ourselves to be a democracy, it seems counter-intuitive to negate discussion by saying, “well we’ll never agree.” The goal of any debate is not always to change the mind of the other person.
Discussions and debates challenge us to be more critical about our own views. When we converse with others who have differing views than us, it allows us a more complex self-reflection about why we think the things we do.
No one wakes up in the morning and thinks, “I have changed my mind!” It’s just not that simple but what is real is that people change their minds through a slowed process of learning. If your views are more antithetical or even radically different than the other person, then discussion is even more urgently needed.
Once we live in such a vacuum in which our thoughts are left unopposed, our viewpoints become increasingly alienating or isolated. Democracy needs people to disagree and to argue. Disagreement, however, does not mean that all issues are divisive or that debates are incapable of getting people to compromise to some degree.
The question that is then asked is, well, what can we do instead of saying these things online? One effective source is a model of non-violent communication that acknowledges the needs of both parties involved in discussion or debate. Developed in the 1960’s by Marshall Rosenberg, his model of non-violent communication involves four important aspects for effective communication: observations, feelings, requests and needs.
If we all engaged and employed non-violent communication in our daily life or online, our worlds would always be constantly challenged at the same time that violence would be mitigated. As uncomfortable as it may be sometimes when we engage sensitive topics with others, the more we practice non-violent communication, the easier it becomes to transverse these types of discussions altogether.