"Playing the Ball, Not The Man" Rediscovering A Lost Art Form of Civil Discourse

I have a diverse list of public groups I belong to and individuals I follow some of which do not align to my own values or share my points of view. I have noticed an escalation in hostility and personal attacks, more so in recent times especially since the impeachment inquiry started, ironically on November 13, World Kindness Day.

Conversations online can turn nasty in a public forum (AKA "The Arena"), where combatants armed with virtual baseball bats (e.g. Statements) are at the ready to identify you as friend or foe by your perceived political persuasion. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, I'm an Australian, yet that does not protect me from judgements of others. Often the veil of false pleasantries is removed with and introduction of passive aggressive subtle sarcasm, which can escalate to smears and at the business end, abusive language, name calling and even threats. Note this has not happened directly to me, more so public figures e.g. @TulsiGabbard @MichelleObama, @MelaniaTrump @JacindaAdern

This type of uncivil discourse is designed to intimidate and point score in the realm of the virtual public opinion to see which mean spirited comments get the most reaction. In the political arena, its used to create a false narrative on an adversary to find the media outlets' 10 second grabs for the following days news highlights, as seen in the 2019 Democratic debates. On social media, it can result in either party blocking the other to claim the higher ground. This virtual victory through exclusion can then escalate once the smell of blood is in the water. If one is still not satisfied the attacks have inflicted enough damage, they can migrate their assault to other platforms with a rally cry going out to their tribe's echo chambers to join the chorus of chants and hashtags. We know this can decimate someone's character and well being. We see the prolonged results harassment has on our children who are continually subjected to online torment.

Individuals caught in the cross-hairs are seen as a disruptive influence with an agenda or viewpoint not aligned to of the party that took offence, simply because they asked an uncomfortable question or their profile did not align as being "like minded" or in their camp. Once the the offender identified, he or she is then given the appropriate tag as a "liberal, conservative, hater, misogynist, racist, feminist , a progressive lefty, socialist or white national.

(FYI Harassment in the eyes of the law is not determined by intent, it is on the perception of the aggrieved and once notice is given to cease and desist, should someone continue to reach out and engage they can be charged.)

Eventually good people become outraged and unwittingly form lynch mobs and if you don't appear outraged enough, you can find yourself in the cross-hairs of your own tribe.

Maybe they just simply unfriend or block the other because the silent treatment of exclusion is the preferred weapon of stealth, but if we exclude the bully from the playground does the bully get better or worse?

The silence though isn't really silence because we will go about planting seeds of doubt among our networks to ensure our target's message is tainted in an attempt to misrepresent the intent thereby creating an alternate narrative to malign the character of the perceived threat of an alternate viewpoint, that may have had too much credibility to counter.

"Play the Ball, Not The Man" my coach would say. This lost art form of civil discourse sees an erosion of the bonds of our communities and yet few venture to ask, "Is this the best we can be?" in the midst of an angry crowd. Sadly most people seek the safety of silence, wanting to avoid conflict preferring to join the silent majority.

(This is why we have the Kindness Clause, https://worldkindnessusa.org/our-kindness-clause/)

When the conversation sees us confronted by smears, personal attacks, passive or otherwise I opt to direct message them with a question to remove the influence of the spectators from the arena.

If a reply is forthcoming, it can be dismissive to either deflect or avoid personal reflection.

Sometimes, an apology is forthcoming and sometimes someone intervenes to identify the inappropriate behavior or correct a false assertion. Those who choose to intervene based on loyalty to an individual, group or brand, I urge you to ask yourself, is this truly your position, and if so perhaps a question rather than a supporting statement to align with your friend, could be more effective? (Friendship can be one of the barriers to kindness.)

I support all of us in the lead up to the US election to use the power of the question mark and raise the benchmark to allow the silent majority to see the alternative to the virtual baseball bat, through civil discourse asking questions rather that stating opinions.

The frailty of the human condition can see anyone of us captured by a culture that prefers to shoot the messenger based on their tribe rather than understand the content of the message. Maybe we just catch each other on bad days but sadly bad days seem to me more frequent as we encounter people not being the best they can be, polarized by bias, conscious or not. Narcissists, corporate psychopaths and perpetrators of domestic violence are different beasts, but regardless, if we seek the #kinderoption we will not add fuel to the fire.