One thing I rarely hear on Facebook:

I totally disagree with you, but I respect the sincerity of your convictions.

One thing I almost never hear on Facebook:

I did disagree with you, but you have given me something to think about.

One thing I have never heard on Facebook

I totally disagreed with you, but now I think you are right.

Why do we post our strongly-held positions on social media? Do we expect to hear “now I think you are right,” because we have spoken so eloquently or do we just hope for one of these three welcoming responses to validate our positions? Do we realize that we will most likely hear none of those three responses?

Mostly we will get friendly confirmations from people who agree with us or angry protests from those that don’t, and that nothing will change as a result of our declaring our strongly-held truth. We are sending our messages into an echo chamber that assures us that we are right and or assures us that any loud dissonances come from the ignorant others who cannot imagine any belief but their own. Is that the only point of ranting for hours a day about what is wrong in the universe?

A hundred years before there was an internet, Walt Whitman said, “I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.” He was a poet with no concern about who accepted his rantings.

He was an advocate for equality and diversity, but he was satisfied to send out his yawp without expecting impact. “Yawp” was his coined word for a shout without much meaning or impact.

When Facebook ranters send their “barbaric yawps over the rooftops,” they have much more concern about the number of likes and comments they receive, because they suppose that proves they are making an impact. They live in a fantasy world where they can push the boulder of truth up a mountain without that boulder ever rolling back on them. And if they are short on “likes,” they believe that someone, somewhere is listening and thinking one of those three thoughtful responses (above) without giving it a “like.” “I respect your sincerity;” “You have given me something to think about;” “Now I think you are right.” They have made a difference.

Snap out of it, people. Facebook is no instrument of evangelism for whatever cause you espouse. Mostly we are satisfying our own egos that the same people agree with us every day, and the same barbarians insert their ugly contradictions. We may be inflaming the wounds that keep our community divided or convincing our adversaries that there can never be harmony in our dissonant society. We are declaring the eternal polarization of our immediate and wider society by declaring our immovable positions.

There is no give-and-take on Facebook, what we once called constructive discussion.  If you want to see investigation of a topic from different points of view, you may see it in an offline public forum, where the rules of discussion are declared and a moderator is present to keep the rhetoric from getting too harsh. You may, but likely won’t, see it in a Congressional Committee’s inquiry session, but you certainly won’t see it in the U.S. Congress itself. We have few models of constructive discussion, so it is no wonder we don’t do it on Facebook.

What Facebook and social media in general are good for is casual conversation, announcements and keeping friends up to date on events in our lives. Avoiding the inflammatory articles or memes and sticking to common wisdom, like Ben Franklin put in Poor Richard’s Almanac (“A penny saved is a penny earned”).  You can share your concerns about the world in a conciliatory way, but avoid accusing the other side as the cause of them. And if you must declare your uncompromising convictions, do it with a generous spirit (“I realize others may legitimately disagree, but  . . .”).

This is polite dinner table conversation, merely intended to share our lives without blaming others or inflaming controversy.  There will never be a law enforcing such conventions, but we could encourage them and discourage the others by spending our likes efficiently.  Keep the shouting down by holding back the “likes.” Occasionally comment to warn the posters who are getting too strident. Get out of an argument as it happens. Let the angry voices speak into an empty room.

Somewhere in our society we need to explore controversy, maybe in public forums with enforced rules of discussion, but not on Facebook, where arguments ramp up wildly with no one listening to the other. It is one barbaric yawp after another.

There are also blogs or newsletters that may take a political turn.  We can chose to subscribe or not. We don’t have to listen to carping or accusations unless we chose to.  Anyone can start a blog or newsletter for anyone who cares to read.  And the letters to the editor of any online or print publication give us a chance to speak our piece with decorum, but not compromising our convictions.

But on the social media platforms, could we stop pretending we are aligning the world to our beliefs? Could we stop inciting others to be rude or acting out their own irrelevant tantrums?  Could we stop trying to prove we are the smartest in the room or at least smarter than those other ignorant people? Could we find a better place to shout our barbaric yawp?

If we agreed to make Facebook a benign site of friendly discussion, we could reduce hate speech and openly insulting remarks. We could set standards of conversation that would teach our children how to engage without rancor. And we could stop deluding ourselves that we are changing the world with our declarations of our personal convictions.

Just know if you continue your political ranting, meming, and yawping I’m not going to “like” to you.