It is now exactly 13 years since the UK/US writer, Dr Paul Graham, came up with his visionary “hierarchy of disagreement.”
At the apex of Graham’s hierarchical pyramid is
refutation. At the murky bottom, you find ad hominem attack and name-calling.
It is not unique to social media, but if you
scan the main platforms many of us now spend hours upon hours engaging daily,
you will catch the general drift of Graham’s assertions.
Witness a hypothetical structure with
refutation at the top, followed by counterargument, contradiction, responses to
“tone”, ad hominem attack and, at the very base, name-calling, insult, and
innuendo. Many times, though, the pyramid is inverted.
We see it over and over. Someone posts
something she considers to be a reasonable observation on a matter of public
interest and there is speedy reference to an unflattering physical or emotional
attribute.
Sometimes lies, ridicule, and defamation emerge
out of the blue almost as a pre-emptive assault. Journalists and others in the
public eye experience this all the time. I have heard, for example, that I am
“a CIA.” This, I suppose, disentitles me to say or write anything credible
about China, Venezuela, Russia, the OAS, Caricom or hotdogs.
Sadly, our political parties do not routinely
set the best example. Loyal trolls, without caution of any kind from leaders,
help by amplifying race-baiting, childish name-calling and outright
disinformation introduced via dispatches often bearing official seals.
On Saturday, for example, T&T Guardian’s
Gail Alexander provided a glossary of terms from the contemporary UNC
information engine room: “deadbeats”, “muppets”, “shameless”, “conman”,
“dithering nincompoop”, “comatose”, “flaccid” (!), “rogue” and “lame”.
Only the day before, the PNM Women’s League
described its UNC counterpart outfit as “a house of ill-repute.”
But, back to Graham and others who have
explored his thesis. It is par for the course that people appear far more
motivated to engage an assertion when they disagree with it.
People like me, who tightly control our
friends’ lists on Facebook but leave ourselves out in the open on Instagram or
Twitter, can tell the difference.
For example, you more frequently see “likes”
and favourable comments among members of your self-constructed echo chambers
than you would with accounts that operate out in the wild.
Additionally, people you attract as online
“followers” or “friends” are highly likely to share the same values as you. For
instance, I do not regularly have to respond to people who are openly opposed
to gender equality, reproductive rights, or freedom of expression and the
press. But I know other types are out there in large numbers and very actively
engaged in undermining these positions.
There are also, of course, taboo areas sensible
people generally avoid because they tend to tacitly invite irrational
discourse. These may include issues associated with organised religion,
political ideology, and race relations.
On these and other issues, as suggested by
Graham, your “tone” rather than the arguments themselves can become the focus
of concern. “I can’t believe you are so dismissive and condescending when it
comes to the anti-vaxxers.”
“A man/woman like you …” is not an infrequent
form of tone-based counterargument and constitutes a variant of what is often
referred to in the behavioural sciences as “passive aggression.”
It is preferable if an error or display of
illogic is addressed in an informed and direct manner rather than through
innuendo or insult. “He is a PNM” or “He is a UNC.”
This is not to say you cannot, with some
experience and street smarts, spot a political hack from a mile cloaked in
passive aggression. My preference is to avoid them at all costs, including the
penalties your ego pays.
Striking back cleverly through parody or satire
or even “throwing words” is well within bounds. But they frequently miss the
mark. Leave them alone. Or write an entire newspaper column as a technical
diss.
Parliament and the hustings also provide no
best practice examples. There you find the inverted pyramid exemplified. But
while politics is no tea party it is also not a “zess” where the one who wines
down lowest prevails.
