Commentary
Punching Air
Coronavirus isn’t our only affliction
The coronavirus pandemic unleashed some of our basest fears and exposed our insecurities, unlocking virus-like behaviors. There’s a particular strain — you can call it a mutation — that seems to be afflicting more and more people, and it may have started well before the pandemic. This strain is especially abrasive on logic and reasoned debate. Repeatedly I find myself saying, “Et tu?” when a heretofore rational person is afflicted with a farfetched hypothesis relating to politics, science, or the human condition. These encounters remind me of the desperate isolation felt by the last humans in the movie, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, as the “pod people” take over the world.
I am receptive to those with views different from mine. To foster positive discourse, I look for similar starting points or some common ground, but I become resistant to the opposing argument when the tone turns cynical or conspiratorial, in search of a puppeteer. Those pulling the strings are often “they,” cut from the same cloth as the ghostly characters “Not Me” and “Ida Know” from Bill Keane’s The Family Circus cartoons I used to enjoy. “They” is often a cabal tenuously responsible for the issue at hand. One entity that is often named as the “they” is the mainstream press, capable of so many indiscretions as a singular unit. If only journalists and newsrooms knew they had it so easy.
I keep to reasoned arguments, supported by verifiable facts. I am guarded, using only data or quotes of which I am certain of their validity. I try to state what I don’t know. I feel clumsy sharing a quote or a fact that turns out to be incorrect, with an urge to correct the mistake as soon as possible. Interestingly, I am usually on the defensive during these conversations. This has to do with our approaches. My antagonists offer a cornucopia of “facts,” loosely or never verified. If any statement turns out to be false, they care not, plowing ahead, knowing we don’t keep score for wrong answers. One of my friends apologizes for his “brain vomit” but disavows none of his crazy talk. Also common is a non sequitur that leaves me befuddled with the change of direction, usually in the form of a whataboutism.
The maxim, “social media is anything but social,” has been repeated so many times that it sounds hollow now. Many of these platforms promote constant updates about the most important person in your life: you. Vanity and narcissism, formerly ignominious traits, have no sting anymore. In the me-me-me culture, they are as blunt as any sense of shame. Many of these platforms are not optimized for reading or listening. Just look at any newspaper that offers open comments. Few contributors bother to untangle the responses of others. Time is better spent preparing the next volley. This is common in my conversations when a non sequitur leaves me befuddled, or a deflection from a self-imposed cul-de-sac ends with a classic whataboutism.
I blame social media platforms for some of the disintegration in civil discourse. The maxim, “social media is anything but social,” has been repeated so many times that it, now, sounds hollow. Many of the social media platforms promote constant updates about the most important person in your life: you. Vanity and narcissism, formerly ignominious traits, have no sting anymore. In the me-me-me culture, they are as blunt as any sense of shame. Many of these platforms don’t facilitate the understanding of others. Rather, they are excellent for fomenting outrage and tribalism. Just look at any newspaper that offers open comments. Few contributors bother to untangle the responses of others. Time is better spent preparing the next volley or commiserating with those who agree with you, amplifying your outrage.
Another reason these conversations go south is because the veneer of expertise is accessible to anyone with a Google search bar. With a few found tidbits, the layperson can counter medical, scientific, and economic reasoning. It is only a small step to spouting new theories based on this superficial knowledge. A little knowledge can be dangerous, creating opportunities for malevolent state actors to exploit kernels of truth, targeting the vulnerable by amplifying unreliable information in echo chambers.
While a pessimistic outlook dominates my thinking, I have found certain tactics useful in countering the speculation and misinformation, such as distilling arguments or positions to their emotional sources, such as fear or anger. These tactics need more testing before they can be shared. In the meantime, without an inoculation program in the works to address conspiracism, our latest cultural phenomenon, I’m just happy not to be on the other side of that piercing shriek and finger point from the Body Snatchers movie when the “pod people” encounter humans.
