Even thoughtful tweets and blog posts are often greeted with contempt, gibes, humor, and abuse by Internet trolls. Moderate opinions encounter immoderate insults that masquerade as wit and spread willful misinterpretation of opponents. The Web makes it easier for large numbers of critics to attack quickly, viciously, and thoughtlessly. This new medium and culture reward bluster instead of modesty and leave little incentive to be caring or careful, fair or factual, trustworthy or thoughtful. Rhetoric gains likes. Reason receives dislikes. The medium that should be our tool shapes our actions and goals. This dark picture is not always accurate, of course, but it is too accurate too often. Sometimes people avoid talking with each other. Even when they do talk, there is little communication of ideas on important issues. Politicians cannot work together, at least partly because they do not understand each other. Opponents will never agree to bear their share of the burden if they do not understand why that burden needs to be carried.
This lack of understanding might sometimes result from incommensurable world views or conflicting assumptions that prevent mutual comprehension. However, political opponents too often do not even try to understand each other, partly because they see no personal or political gain in reaching out and being fair. Indeed, they often have strong incentives neither to reach out nor to be fair. Tweeters and bloggers go wild on the Internet, because their goal is to gain likes for their jokes and gibes. They receive few such rewards on the Internet from balanced attempts to see the other side in contentious debates. Why should they try to understand their opponents when they think that they are bound to fail and get nothing in return for their attempts? Admittedly, many interesting and insightful conversations do occur on Twitter and the Internet, but the huge number of lurking trolls scares off many potential contributors. When they give up on understanding, they turn to willful misunderstanding and misinterpretation. People on both sides of divisive disputes repeatedly put words into each other's mouths and then retort or snort, I cannot imagine why they think that. Of course, they cannot imagine why their rivals think that, because they formulated their rivals' views in that way precisely to make those views look silly.
They know or should know that they are misrepresenting their opponents, but they do not care. Their goals are not to convince opponents or appreciate their positions. They seek only to amuse their allies by abusing their opponents. These attitudes undermine respect, connection, and cooperation. You hold your position. I cannot comprehend how you could be so blind. You have no idea why I am so stubborn. I do not respect your views. You return the favor. We abuse and come to despise each other. I do not want to meet with you. You do not want to deal with me. I refuse to compromise. Neither of us is open to any possibility of cooperation. No progress is made. How did we fall into this cultural hole? How can we climb out? The full story is complex, of course. Anything as widespread and intricate as a culture is bound to have many aspects and influences. These issues should not be oversimplified, but it would be overwhelming to try to discuss all of its complications at once. I focus on this one bit, because it is often overlooked, because it is fundamental, because it lies within my expertise, and because each of us can do something about it in our personal lives instead of having to wait for politicians and cultural leaders to act.
We can all start to work on the problem right now. My answer is that many people have stopped giving reasons of their own and looking for reasons for opposing positions. Even when they give and receive reasons, they do so in a biased and uncritical way, so they fail to understand the reasons on each side of the issue. These people claim too often that their stance is so obvious that anyone who knows what they are talking about will agree with them. If so, opponents must not know what they are talking about. Even before their opponents start talking, these people feel confident that those on the opposing side must all be deeply confused or misinformed or even crazy. They disparage their opponents as so silly that they cannot have any reason at all on their side. As a result, elections are decided by who gets out the most voters and perhaps by who creates the most rousing or humorous advertisements and slogans instead of by who gives the strongest reasons for their policies. This strategy cannot help us climb out of our rut.