Tell me if this rings a bell:
Someone posts a hyperventilating rage-screed on social media. It may get a few likes and other reactions, it may get ignored, it may get some "Amen!" comments. Or, it may get challenged or rebutted. An exchange ensues, where the original poster gets mad at the rebutter, nasty words are exchanged, the OP says "I didn't ask you," and unfriendings and/or blockings happen.
People post reactive stuff on social media all the time. Most do so for purposes that have nothing to do with the free exchange of ideas, and everything to do with catharsis, virtue-signal, or the pursuit of echo-chamber validation. Many aren't inviting discussion (other than validation), debate (other than a circle-jerk) or dissent. Instead, there's a subtext in some form of:
I'm a-gonna put this bold statement on my wall but I'm putting you on notice that I don't want any debate.
I operate social media in broadcast only mode but will accept likes and hearts.
Positive comments only.
I'm not gonna get into it with you right now.
Please unfollow me so you will no longer be subjected to my irrational musings.
as several of my friends noted in a discussion about one such screed.
This mindset is often also witnessed in other forms, whether it be casual conversation or sharing of information. Confirmation bias being what it is, people tend to like associating with those who think as they do, are more likely to repeat the same assertions, and support them rather than question them. We also often witness a "selling past the close" tactic, where people talk of what to do about a matter as if the matter itself is beyond question.
The same people will often dismiss statements they don't want to believe or agree with by asserting subjectivity of truth, as in "you have your facts, I have mine." Dismiss, by the way, not rebut. And, if they're polite, they'll offer up:
Let’s agree to disagree,
which translates to
Laaaalalalalalala I'm pretending not to hear your comments,
with fingers figuratively in ears.
The apotheosis of this was a recent sharing of a story deriding censorship, with comments disabled. Hey, that’s your right, but don’t expect me to take you seriously.
I’m tempted to argue that this is born of postmodernism’s abandonment of reality in favor of subjective truths, but the reality (see what I did there?) is simpler - social media has made people think fleeting thoughts and momentary reactions are deep wisdom.
Then there are the folks who call for action against a "truth" that's anything but. Fighting the trade deficit via protectionism, not vaccinating kids because vaccines cause autism, demanding non-GMO products because GMO is Frankenfood, legislating against gender-based wage inequality, taxing the rich because they don't pay their fair share, imposing a higher minimum wage because no one can raise a family at the current one - all are examples of actions taken against false, unsubstantiated, or misleading premises. But, challenge those premises, rather than merely debate the conclusion, and you’ll often be called nasty names.
This elicits the old Ronald Reagan quote:
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
This isn't only true for liberals, of course. There’s a laundry list of conservative "certainties" that aren't all that certain or flat-out wrong. This phenomenon knows no political boundaries.
I consider any comment, any post, any meme, any share on social media to be an unconstrained invitation for (civil) reply and discussion. You should, too. It is only through honest feedback, positive, negative, concurring, dissenting, neutral, or corollary, that information and opinions get vetted and improved. If you post something alluding to the injustice of censorship or about embracing liberty, and reject dissent or turn your comments, off, you don’t really “get it.”
If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.
If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.
Thank you for your support!
Yours in liberty,
Peter.
I am not so convinced that the response of "we'll agree to disagree" is lame. Having been commenting online even prior to the existence of the web, I've come to see that there are times when neither party is going to be able to convince the other regarding a particular point or position or issue. And so, to keep on trading comments back and forth will not lead to light but just continued exasperation and anger. Life is too short to waste it doing that. There are already too many people who get publicity and big bucks for keeping us angry with each other.
Peter, you honor your Grecian ancestors with a nice treatise on informal fallacies and rhetoric, but I must ask whether “circle-jerk” is of Socratic, Platonic or Aristotlean genesis?😲