Great article. Human beings are full of fear, and fear leads to “the other,” which is one of many forms of divisiveness. When “the other” is created so is the notion of “lesser than,” which makes attacking a person so much easier on the conscience.
You wrote, “Nowhere is this divide more visible and pronounced than in the political sphere,” but I am not so sure about this, we also see it profoundly in religion, race, nationalism, tribalism, and hot issues of the day.
The derisive and nasty comments you received that used the word Zionist as a pejorative is a great example of what you are talking about. There is no doubt that the antiZionist sentiments have been fueled by the Arab world over the decades. This is easy to research and trace to a propaganda war, yet people have fed into it without every really diving deep to study it without bias. But I don’t want to get off track.
It’s obvious that social media opened up a Pandora’s box of nastiness that has done a great deal to destroy the social fabric in the “civilized” world. Nastiness can be exported instantaneously through the keyboard without personal risk, responsibility, or sense of compassion.
Forty-five decades ago I was graduated from Journalism college at a leading university in that field of study. We were taught the importance of double and triple checking facts and presenting a story from all angles, even ones that defied our personal biases. All of this has gone out the window, even in the major media where, as you suggest, it is more important to anger and divide people for ratings than it is to present the truth.
If a person uses a word like Zionist they should know the history of Zionism and its relationship to the exile of the Jewish people to Babylon 2500 years ago. But this isn’t the way it goes these days. Truth has become an opinion and nothing more. We have a presidential candidate who has made record setting art form of lying, pathologically. If you argue with an opinion you are usually met with responses befitting the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old.
Yes, it’s best to attack the argument and not the person, but sadly this is not the trend, not the reality. When I get a nasty comment on something I have written I first respond by asking the person to state the facts instead of attacking me. Sometimes it goes well and the person calms down and states his case. However, nearly always he comes to the end of his rope and goes back on the ad hominem train. Too often a person who disagrees with me insists that I present the facts to him, but it is not my job to educate anyone. If I read something that seems outrageous or false I look it up for myself. If I give someone the facts they usually respond by saying that the facts aren’t true, so there is no point in doing this. Each person must investigate information for himself or it remains secondhand.
Maybe, hopefully, the more of us who bring the conversation back to facts and civility the more a trend can start to reverse the ugliness and division.
