Discourse

Half of me really wants to write about the whole Kony 2012 business that is taking the internet by storm. I watched the video yesterday morning and have since read dozens of articles and blog posts. Not a single one has said exactly what I want to say about it. I have so many complex thoughts jumbling around in my head on the topic, and I feel like writing about it would help me clarify in my head.

The other half of me really does not want to write about Kony 2012. The flurry of responses has been overwhelming and messy, and I don't want to add to all the noise. So I think I'm going to compromise and write about something related to the Kony 2012 sensation that has been bothering me for some time.

For those of you who have somehow avoided hearing about Kony 2012 or simply haven't gotten around to watching the video yet, there is a video absolutely exploding on Facebook and all around the internet about Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and, more recently, Sudan and South Sudan. Kony is the number one war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Court but has managed to evade capture for many years. Invisible Children, the charity that made the Kony 2012 video, has been working to stop Kony since 2003, and this video is the push to finish it this year by increasing awareness and therefore keeping the US military involved. Clearly the increasing awareness part has worked, as it is all over Facebook. The results remain to be seen.

There has been a lot of positive response to the video and Invisible Children as a whole, but I have also seen a good deal of negative response. People are criticizing Invisible Children's lack of transparency in terms of how they use their donations and the fact that what we do know shows that a distressingly small portion of their income goes directly to their charitable efforts. People are claiming (though I haven't seen any evidence given) that Invisible Children exaggerates the facts in order to elevate the emotional response. And people are worried that the method the video puts forth (having the US military support the Ugandan military as they try to catch Kony) is flawed since first, the LRA has largely moved out of Uganda and second, the Ugandan military has been accused of committing many of the same atrocities that Kony has. On top of this there are the usual criticisms of internet activism and of diverting attention from other groups in similar positions. So many articles. So many opinions. So much noise.

Don't get me wrong, much of all of this encourages me. I am encouraged by young people's ability to be stirred by injustice in the world. I am encouraged by people's willingness to stand up for something they believe in. I am also encouraged by the fact that people are thinking critically about this and not simply jumping on an emotional bandwagon. It is extremely important to make sure you are supporting a group that will not do more harm than good. I feel unqualified to make that judgment call on Invisible Children, but I very much appreciate the fact that people are making their best effort to figure that out.

But there are several things that bother me, the top one being one that has been on my mind for a while. It is the fact that we seem unable to have a polite discourse in our society, most especially on the internet. Now, I'm no internet-hater. I think that the internet has done wonders for many people in terms of staying informed, ease of long-distance communication, and so many other ways. But, like nearly everything on this earth, it has its upsides and downsides, one of the major downsides being the way we argue on the internet.

So many times recently, including in these responses to the Kony 2012 video, I have seen deeply inflammatory articles and posts that brutally attack the opinion and character of those they disagree with. And almost invariably there are responses that agree without reservation and others that respond in an equally incendiary manner against the writer of the article. There is no humility in these posts, no openness to other viewpoints. Any disagreement at all is going to be viewed as an attack, so they must attack in return. It makes discourse on a subject absolutely futile.

I don't know what causes so many people to write this way. It could be the anonymity of the internet. It could be that on the internet you can find hundreds of people who agree with you no matter what you say. It could be that people think that this is the best way to argue.

Factually, though, it is not. It does not work. If you want to change someone's opinion, you do not attack them. If you do, their posture is automatically going to be defensive. Their only desire will be to prove you wrong and retain their good name. They will have to interest in listening to your actual opinion.

If, on the other hand, you approach the subject with humility, a willingness to agree on certain points, and ultimately a willingness to hear their side of the story, there is a far greater chance they will listen. Of course it won't work invariably. There will still be those who will immediately discount you because you disagree. But those who are open to discourse may learn something from what you have to say, and you may learn something from them. And you will both be the better for it.

I am glad that we argue. I am glad that we have access to people with different viewpoints from us who can challenge our status quo. I am glad that there are people who think critically and can open my mind to new and different opinions. But I think the world would be a better place if we could learn to love a little more in our arguments. Not only would this take away some of the bitterness, but it could actually make our arguments worthwhile.