Is there such a thing as being “Too Online” these days?

Can’t we just be done with disagreeing? If you would ask the popular consensus, most people would say that both sides on the political/philosophical spectrum need to quit arguing and just agree. Right? Because as the old saying goes, “It takes two to tango.” 

But I would submit, sometimes, only one is needed to keep the dance going.

Feuding and fighting with your neighbor is as American as apple pie. Social Media didn’t start human divisiveness, it has been around quite a long time. Ever since the famous Hatfield and McCoy feud that took place in the hill country of Kentucky and West Virginia back in the late 1800s, the urge to destroy your enemy lies deep in humanity’s collective soul. What started out with simply stealing a pig and carrying him across a cold mountain creek, ended with the murder and massacre criminal case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court where seven Hatfields received life sentences for setting fire to a McCoy family cabin and shooting two of their children who were scampering to get away from flying bullets.

I recently watched an Andrew Klavan video on YouTube where he made this poignant statement concerning those who have disagreed with him online, “I have lost a lot of friends in recent years for my political positions, but I am always open to having a civil discussion, it is always my opponents choice to carry on with their one-way feud.” The person who chooses to be offended and walks away from the discussion is the one who is actually keeping the animosity and hatred going. 

With that in mind, I want to ask a very serious question that I think needs to be answered: “Is it possible, when there is a very contentious disagreement, that one side can actually be wrong.

We live in an era where no one is wrong, all opinions are right, so we are told to tolerate and embrace the other person’s argument regardless of their false logic and even immoral stance. In our post-modern world, everything is relative.

But is it? 

Is every issue really a pointless discussion that is grounded in moral equivalencies? Are our arguments always the bi-product of our polarized political world driven by power and greed? Or are there some issues that actually have a right and wrong conclusion? 

Is conflict to be avoided at all costs? I believe there is a time and place for argument, even to the point of standing your ground and not giving in to the opinion of the other just to make them happy. 

The famous Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo, once wrote when it comes to a significant debate, that he will do everything he can not to “accommodate those who have more conceit than capacity, which makes the disease they suffer from all the more dangerous…perhaps [through scripture] they are able to discover reasons they can have no doubt about…they will sooner find fault with their own minds than with the truth itself or our arguments.”

“More conceit than capacity” is an interesting phrase. This means that many of the people we try to have discussions/arguments with will often be confident of their position not because it is based on reason, or their use of consistent logic in the argument, but many times they are only standing on conceit. Conceited people think they know things simply because they believe they are better, smarter, and have experienced more of life than most everyone else. If a person has a fine-sounding degree from a recognized institution of higher learning, or they are part of an elevated minority class, or if they have experienced a devastating childhood drama, or even if they drink a fancy craft beer, they believe themselves to have more insight on the world than others. 

Post-modern philosophers, like W. E. B. DuBois, call this having “second sight.” Because a person has had a certain personal experience, or they are raised in a special community, they think they see and understand more of reality than others who have not had the same experiences or who haven’t been raised in the same community. So when the conceited get into an argument, they start from a position of superiority. An inner pride causes them to instinctively vaunt themselves above those they are arguing with. 

Pride is a horrible disease because proud people become blinded by their own belief in their superiority. When you try to have a civil argument with a proud person you have already lost the argument in the mind of the proud person even before you open your mouth. You have met a person who will smirk at whatever you say, believing you are wrong simply because you said it and they didn’t.

Conceit not only is meant to stop all discussion, but it pours fuel on the feud because the conceited person stays cemented in their arrogant blindness, which in turn infuriates the person who just simply wants to be heard. And that is precisely why you should never abandon your right to be heard because when arguing with a proud person your silence feeds their conceit. It gives them more justification to believe that they are right. But hopefully, through calm measured discussion, logical reasoning, and humility without backing down, you may eventually gain a hearing. Or at least those listening in on your conversation will smell your opponent’s pride and they will want to hear you out. 

Actual persuasion may take some time, so don’t give up.

As Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:22-24, “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

As I was researching about the Hatfields and McCoys, one writer said there may have been a physiological reason that can explain the extreme hatred that was displayed by each tribe, “A rare medical condition may be partly to blame for the violence of the notorious clash of clans. In a 2007 study, a team of doctors and geneticists who had studied dozens of McCoy descendants noted an unusually high rate of Von Hippel-Lindau disease, a rare, inherited condition that produces tumors of the eyes, ears, pancreas, and adrenal glands as well as high blood pressure, a racing heartbeat and increased ‘fight or flight’ stress hormones.”

I probably shouldn’t go there, but if I am allowed to read between the lines of this report and combine a conjecture that I gleaned from watching the movie Deliverance, maybe the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s violence had something to do with inbreeding.

And the more I think about it, maybe inbreeding is our current culture’s problem too? 

Yes, I think that is our problem. Instead of intra-family marriage, which causes physical abnormalities from sexual inbreeding, maybe the same thing is happening with our collective thinking because most of our culture is being shaped by a malevolent monolithic mental inbreeding. Jonathan Haidt, a leading American sociologist was recently interviewed about the influence our current elite institutions that form the American mind, and he states this shocking truth:

“As I was finishing writing The Righteous Mind, I was getting more and more concerned about how moral communities bind themselves together in ways that block open-minded thinking. I began to see the social sciences as tribal moral communities, becoming ever more committed to social justice, and ever less hospitable to dissenting views. I wanted to know if there was any political diversity in social psychology. So I asked for a show of hands. I knew it would be very lopsided. But I had no idea how much so. Roughly 80% of the thousand or so in the room self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative.”

In other words, our cultural feud is happening precisely because one side is inbred. Inbred people don’t tolerate dissension, in fact, they can’t understand why anyone would not see things their way. And so those who disagree with them have been pigeonholed as the source of the hatred. When in fact hate comes from the majority. You must agree or be shut down. It is important that we do not participate in this group-think mentality if we wish to be intellectually healthy, not to mention, effective debaters. We must be willing to hear the other side to strengthen the arguments for our convictions so that they stand against scrutiny and then there is no need to silence our opponents.

But then there is another group of people that keep the feud going by simply walking away from contentious discussions. Instead of blind pride leading them to conceit, bruised pride leads this group to isolation and distancing. When this group starts losing the argument, instead of changing their perspective and admitting they may be wrong, this group claims injury. It is easier for them to pick up their toys and go home than it is to listen and learn. And instead of listening, these fragile-minded inbreds will go to safe places that confirm their position, hiding in echo chambers of bitterness and justification that confirm their bias. 

So instead of standing on their own two feet, the bruised ego will follow the loud shrill voice of the strong allied hero that helps them shoot at their enemy from the shadows. Passionate slings and arrows consisting of ad hominem attacks and false binaries are slung with violent force to destroy their enemies. For instance, many will say, “If you disagree with me, you are an argumentative judgmental person.” So once again, the feud continues because peace will only come if you submit and agree with them. It is one-sided.

So how did the Hatfield and McCoy feud end? After a lot of chaos, carnage, and blood spilled, the patriarch of the Hatfield family, William Anderson Hatfield, nicknamed “Devil Anse” (hand of the Devil), was confronted by a very brave, and some say, a fool hearty man named William Garrett. William Garret happened to be a preacher of the Christian gospel who shared with the Hatfield’s head, the story of Jesus and how faith in him cleansed the sinner from his guilt. It was exactly what Devil Anse was longing to hear for his whole life. Garrett’s willingness to speak up in the face of wild conceit and pride actually caused a hard heart to change. The Devil Anse listened, and on September 23, 1911, he was baptized. 

The feud was forever over. The fire of hate quenched. And true peace was achieved. All it took was the courage to tell the truth, and the Spirit of God penetrating a hardened sinner’s heart.  

So keep trying.