Just two days ago, online commenters from this university attacked my identity, my friend group and my character.
We were discussing how to make trans and other people who don't adhere to the gender binary feel comfortable, and I pointed out that if we were supposed to ask everyone what their preferred pronoun is before addressing them, then people would regularly be asking me if I was male, female or somewhere in between. I even mentioned that I do not know what the solution is but was concerned that having people question whether or not I was male would offend and confuse me. I thought my response, in polite society, would be an obvious invitation to discussion.
The replies I was met with ranged from being told that, because I am cis gender, my sensibilities matter less so I should "...get the [expletive] over myself..." to saying that I was arguing against "decency and kindness" to comments that implied my friend groups are artificial. These commentators carried on the conversation, oblivious to their bad form, as if I would respond to a horde of comments attacking me personally. It didn't matter that I admitted I didn't have the answer, or that I opened the door to conversation: I was questioning them. I was the enemy.
It doesn't take too much browsing to figure out that the Internet has a unique culture of its own. Whether one browses Reddit sub-forums, has ever been in a Facebook debate or ventured deep into the comments section of a news article about a controversial subject, one can't help that Internet debates are... different. A strange interplay among internet trolls, thought police, sarcastic replies, devil's advocates, bigots, social justice warriors and people interested in coming to an understanding makes normal policy debates incredibly frustrating. Duke's campus is not immune.
I was brought up thinking that dialogue is constructive. I figured that the more people talk about issues, the more they're able to improve upon their own ideas. The classic Hegelian dialectic for how ideas gain prominence is that one proposes a thesis, which gives rise to an antithesis, and the tension between the two eventually produces a synthesis that improves upon both theories. Yet, even in an academic environment like Duke, many refuse to engage with opposing argument.
The idea that engaging in dialogue with others is unproductive is, unfortunately, pervasive in American society. Abraham Lincoln once said that it is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt," while George Bernard Shaw said, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."Although college campuses are intended to be a marketplace of ideas, too many people are comfortable standing on the sideline.
This creates a dangerous phenomenon where many people's ideas are left largely unchallenged, and when they are challenged, it may often come from an "internet troll," who is a person that argues online just to make others upset and purposefully posts inflammatory comments. In the face of such a culture, a particular orthodox ideology becomes prevalent, and this creates a feedback loop that leads to group polarization. Any sort of “out” group isn't tolerated, and the communist of McCarthy's era is like the bigot of today's era. Once one has been accused of deviating from the norm, there is a burden placed on that person to prove otherwise. This fear of being accused limits dialogue.
Perhaps even more dangerously, this group polarization makes the predominant group more likely to think that anyone who disagrees with them is evil or racist or sexist or a bigoted or (insert your favorite ad-hominem here). It's not productive. No matter how many times this topic is written about, it just doesn't seem to stick. But I plan on continuing to try.
In the echo chamber that is Duke University's campus, it's all too easy to lose sight of why we came to college. We did not come here to be indoctrinated into a single worldview, and that's the last thing the administration wants. We came here to critically engage with others, to learn from their experiences and perspectives and to synthesize those with our own experiences.
Arguably even more frustrating than those who caricature their ideological opponents are the bystanders. From my own experience, when large communities see ad hominem attacks and other questionable forms of argument, those comments tend to get the most "likes." Yet, by judging an argument based on “likes” from people who never themselves enter the arena, group polarization only continues to increase.
It is easy to attack someone personally on the Internet but much more difficult to do so in person. I would highly encourage anyone who is actually interested in learning more about other viewpoints to engage with those people in person. Starting the conversation is difficult, but once you break that barrier, it is much easier to actually expose yourself to the way other people think.
One of the most critical things that you can do when engaging others is to separate the argument from the person. Moreover, you need to be able to identify what someone is saying from what someone is not saying. Anyone familiar with debate, or anyone who has taken the LSAT, knows that if you want to assess arguments, you need to be able to assess the argument that is actually being made and not bring any preconceived notions about what one's identity or personal values are into the conversation unless they've been stated as part of the argument. If you do, it's a straw man, one of the most classical ways to be intellectually dishonest.
The hysteria of McCarthy-ism died down only after Senator McCarthy was confronted publically. We can ignore the Internet culture, but it will not end the orthodoxy and unwillingness to engage. To fix this culture, we need to be willing to engage with it.
Tyler Fredricks is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.