Problems with Modern Political Discourse

In the modern world, politics has become more and more divisive, and is becoming more and more entangled in our lives. With the advancements of social media and technology to create constant and instantaneous connectivity with people with different views and perspectives all across the globe, exacerbating political discussion and discourse. With different opinions, however, comes increasing disagreements and ideological conflicts, resulting in nasty consequences, such as trolling, toxicity and possible bullying. This article aims to identify the problems regarding modern political discourse when views clash on the modern internet, and what can be done to change the attitudes of people when engaging in political discussion.

There are some major issues that can often come about from these political debates. Firstly, the clash in ideologies can cause both parties of the debate to be extremely closed-minded and only argue their point rather than attempting to understand why the other party believes the way they do. These tactics essentially create a ‘brick wall’ situation, where both parties of the debate construct their arguments in a way that only filters views that they believe in, while blocking alternative ideas from the other side, which is the epitome of the phrase ‘talking to a brick wall’. The creation of brick walls that cannot be crossed frustrates both parties immensely, and can often lead to name-calling and accusing the other party of being completely stupid. This creates unfruitful arguments, where both sides only take at face-value their own sources and develop a closed-minded attitude towards the debate. A contemporary example of creating these brick walls is seen in black lives matter debates, where people on the opposition to the movement say ‘all lives matter if you really want to be fair’ and does not accommodate for any factual information from those that support black lives matter. All these situations prove is that the other side is unwilling to compromise or cooperate with the conversation, and thus leaving both parties unsatisfied.

Secondly, there is a prominent culture where political debate is used to ‘destroy’ a person with ‘facts and logic’, especially among those who follow what is classified as ‘right-wing’ media. This idea of destroying people makes a toxic environment, where debaters will fight until the very end to prove their point while completely ignoring the opposition’s point of view. This toxic environment discourages people from engaging in political discussion again, and brings distaste to politics in general. A very prominent figure-head of ‘destroying’ people is Ben Shapiro, the editor of the Daily Wire, who stirs controversy on the internet by engaging in debates which aim to completely shut down the other part to express his more conservative views. The idea that has been brought is that debates should only consider ‘facts and logic’ rather than feelings. This philosophy has been spreading throughout the internet, and is transforming debate into shouting matches which end with one side going ‘my opponent is so stupid to use feelings and emotions in this, I’m leaving’.

In this environment of debate which is unproductive discourages fruitful, thoughtful debate, what can possibly be done? A difference in how we view debate might be in order, and encouraging people to change their culture in order to accommodate for the other party’s view. Personally, I agree with a system where people learn to respect the opinions of others, but not necessarily agree with them. Respecting one’s views in this circumstance means that you know why they are arguing this point and what their motivations and ideas are behind their thoughts, and that you consider these ideas and points into your counter-arguments. Agreeing with a point of view means that you agree with it. In a political debate, it is most important that both parties respect the other person’s viewpoint before they engage in discussion about why they believe in the viewpoint they agree with. If implemented correctly, this will eliminate the brick wall problem, and the idea that facts and logic wins the debate, as it accommodates differing opinions and different ways of looking at an issue.

Now more than ever in this hotly contested political environment, we need to come together to find compromises and understand what people believe so that society as a whole can come together to be a better place in general, and where new ideas can come from discussions with the internet. I might just be extremely hopeful, but if people respected each other on the internet or even in real life, we can gain more policies that account for more people in the population, and so we can find the best path forward for society as a whole. As Herbert Henry Lahman once said, “I must respect the opinions of others even if I disagree with them”.