The world needs more civil listeners who are willing to hear a speaker out, before they voice their own opinions. I'm all for a good civilized discussion between decent people. It can be an animated discussion; it can even get a bit testy on both sides. But it cannot descend into mayhem. It cannot become an attack on the speaker or an attack by the speaker on his or her listeners. It also cannot be a one-sided discussion, in the way that some discussions become, when the speaker (or the listeners) dominate the discussion. No one likes to be told that they have to think or act in a certain way, no one likes to be told that their opinion is the wrong one, with the implication that the other person's opinion is the only correct one.
When I use internet, I read the user comments to the stories that are presented on different social media platforms. Some of the comments invite civil discussion; many do not. And I often wonder, when I sit in a room full of politically-correct (on the surface) people, how the same individuals let loose when they get the chance, often on social media. It's been written about many times before, but for some reason people feel freer to be rude and derogatory when they're on social media. Twitter is a good example. The limitations on how many words your tweet can be often generate rude and startling tweets. I rarely visit Twitter anymore exactly for that reason. No one hears the other person out. The platform is not set up that way. It does not invite real discussion. It does invite venting. Venting is fine, but it's probably best to do it in the privacy of your own home, preferably away from family members who have most likely grown tired of listening to the same rants and raves. Venting does not invite discussion; it destroys discussion, and it destroys the willingness on the part of listeners to hear the venter out.
In normal conversation, it should be possible to listen to what another person has to say before answering. It should be possible to not interrupt, to not jump in with your opinion, to not destroy the focus and flow of another person's thoughts and feelings (if they are being expressed). As long as the speaker is civil, the responses should be civil. But we have come to a point in the world where even if the speaker is civil and asks an audience to let him or her finish, there is no guarantee that civil responses will be the outcome, even in family situations. And the latter are often the most insidious, especially if one person (male or female) dominates all discussions and the rest of the family end up being helpless listeners or cowed into listening.
How did we get to this point? I don't know. I remember watching 'Meet the Press' with my father during the late 1970s. If there were people on the show with opposing ideas, they each got their say. There was a host/moderator who ensured that the tone stayed civil. Critics might say that this emphasis on civility limited real discussion; I disagree. Even talk show hosts listen to their guests. If a civil discussion degenerates into chaos, what does one learn then? Nothing. Chaos does not lead to real discussion, truthfulness, honesty or awareness. It destroys whatever decency exists. That's how I view Twitter. I don't learn anything useful on that platform, at least where politics are concerned. There are no 'take home messages' that help me in my daily life.
My hope for today is that we try to be better listeners. Thank you for reading and for hearing me out.
