War on Twitter – can there be Reconciliation?

Since a young lad sitting around the family dinner table, there was not a weekend that went by, where some political argument didn't rage into the night. My father was an engineer, who had worked on dubious projects he would never discuss with any of us, including my mother. But good old dad loved to play “devil's advocate”.

Depending on the topic under discussion, dad would wait and access the majority opinion in the group, to only swoop in without warning with a cogent argument. He never used personal arguments, attacking the man: ad hominum. The problem with today's incendiary political times. Ad hominum arguments seem to prevail, particularly on Twitter.

I opened a Twitter account around a year into Trump's presidency. My reason for joining so late is varied, however, I thought, considering the POTUS uses Twitter to announce policy, sack people in his administration, and post personal opinions, not being a “Twitter-person” seemed to be apolitical, and really, there is no such thing as apolitical. So I opened an account.

The first person I followed, naturally, was president Trump. For me at the time, this was really exciting. I was actually following the president of the United States, who tweeted on a daily sometimes hourly basis. In the back of my mind, at last, I had an inside source into the Trump WH: the President. No really, this was exciting. The more I tweeted, the more I discovered people's politics I agreed with, the more individuals who I looked up to in a way, I began to follow. I have learned now, that this was a mistake.

Most of us on social media are aware of the Troll. A troll is a contributor on social media who attacks you, wantonly looking for a reaction, a trigger, in order to get you upset. Trolls desire an irrational response, and once getting that reaction, attack that reaction - “You snowflake.” “Libtard” “Faggot” and sometime altogether worse. That said, the longer I was on Twitter, the more trolls I observed, the more I had come to recognise them. Generally, I would ignore these people or “bots”, but occasionally, I would challenge them with facts and, not surprisingly, the trolling would stop. On the weekend, I commented on the current “children at the border” situation. The inhuman separating of children from their parents. I was instantly attacked from the right.

“Where did you get this from, MSM?”

I will not dictate the conversation word for word, only to say it began with this person attacking me, ad hominum arguments. It was then I decided not to react emotionally, but to argue with only facts.

It was after a few hours that this person came back, acknowledging my point of view. He said that if ever I wanted to discuss politics, he was open to it. This surprised me, but it also gave me a little hope.

Despite one's political differences, it is possible to at least acknowledge another point of view. That, really, it is possible to have a discussion on social media without being sarcastic, attacking one personally and possibly, reaching some consensus.

In this particular argument with my twitter-person, we reached a consensus, that separating children from their parents is wrong. He acknowledged this despite being a staunch Trump supporter. I found this to be a win of sorts. Because to only huddle with those who agree with you, nothing can change. However engaging with other's with different ideas, no matter contrary to your own, with honest discussion, things can change – for the better.