Someone online just called you a monster. You have the perfect comeback ready, and your friends are going to love it. Don’t send it.
Not because you should be nice. Being civil isn’t being nice. It’s a move your opponent isn’t ready for, and it wins arguments that rage never can.
Not everyone sees the world our way. Most people agree in theory with reducing suffering and increasing well-being (it is, after all, Practically-objective Good), but many believe their own views do the most good. Faced with disagreement, especially from someone whose positions aren’t well thought out, the habit now is to dehumanize and demonize rather than look for common ground. Break that habit down, though, and it becomes clear that civil discourse is the only rational response to even the most hostile opponent with the most disturbing views.
Dehumanization Cycles and the Culture of Fear
Dehumanization usually runs in both directions. It’s natural to answer attacks with attacks. Fair is fair: they aren’t being civil, so why should I bother?! We think, “These people don’t deserve civility!”
That mentality creates a Dehumanization Cycle, made worse online by echo chambers and the “Culture of Fear.” Algorithmic feeds (Facebook and Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube) reward whatever provokes the strongest reaction, and bots and AI-generated content now pump even more outrage into the mix. It works like this:
- People who disagree dehumanize the other side, and stop caring about each other’s welfare. It’s no longer rare for people to openly wish their political opponents would suffer or die, and that can erupt into violence, because they no longer see each other as human.
- Bystanders who agree with the other side, even in part, are afraid to voice the smallest dissent for fear of being outgrouped. So they nod along. Their possibly important viewpoint goes unsaid, the prevailing opinion looks bigger than it is, and friends who quietly agree stay silent too. Echo chambers are populated in part by silent dissenters who don’t know each other, feel completely alone, and are afraid to speak out.
- Together, these create a Culture of Fear reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the US, where anyone who strays from the favored, often most extreme, views is treated as a traitor. Every dehumanizing remark is met with more dehumanization and vitriol. It is a massive, horrible Dehumanization Cycle, dividing our local, national, and global societies.
And no, it’s not OK when we do it but bad when they do it, even though it feels that way. Landing zingers feels good, especially when your echo chamber applauds. But that’s not the point. The point is reducing suffering, and feeding this cycle gets no one closer.
Conflating Extreme Views with Extreme Rhetoric
Activists look at the world with panic in their hearts and fire in their eyes. They see their adversaries’ words and actions as extreme, and the gut reaction is to fight hard and fight dirty. These are dire times, they feel, with no time for civility toward someone so dead set against their rights. So they answer with dehumanizing rhetoric of their own, and the cycle continues. The problem is that dismissing civility actually helps the other side.
The usual reaction to lies and rage is outrage and more rage. It’s easy, and it feels good, to shout someone down, land a few jabs, and make the bad guys feel bad. The problem is it doesn’t work. It doesn’t make them feel bad at all. Answering rage with rage entrenches your opponent. It lets them see you as even less of a person, makes them likelier to dig in, and fills both your echo chambers with fresh hatred for each other.
This is a key flaw of the Social Extremists. Extreme political positions can be valid, important, and sometimes absolutely necessary. But Social Extremists see extreme politics and rhetoric and respond with extreme discourse: dehumanizing, demonizing, dismissing, ostracizing. That is exactly the wrong way to change an extremist’s mind. It feeds the Dehumanization Cycle and leaves everyone caring less about both the people and the issues.
Here’s what most people miss: the side that dehumanizes first expects to be dehumanized back, and is sometimes looking forward to it. Being demonized proves they were right all along: the other side is unreasonable and calls names instead of making a good point. The irony, that they threw the first insult, goes unnoticed, because this behavior is at least partly innate.
This matters more as our politics grow more divided, because our instincts are telling us to do exactly the wrong thing! Social Extremists miss the most important point. Civil discourse is not yielding a position, it’s wielding a weapon! Humanization works against extreme rhetoric far better than more extreme rhetoric ever could.
How Humanism Improves Civil Discourse
“Left-wing and right-wing political ideologies have themselves become secular religions, providing people with a community of like-minded brethren, a catechism of sacred beliefs, a well-populated demonology, and a beatific confidence in the righteousness of their cause.”
— Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (2018)
If there is one place where society most obviously needs repair, it’s civil discourse. Across the country and across the internet, calm, civil discussion seems to be dying, replaced by hate.
That’s a real loss. Civil discussion leads to growth, open minds, and cooperation, and diversity of thought makes a community and its people better. Instead, we see pervasive demonization, deplatforming, and ostracization of good people with different perspectives. People do better in societies that thrive, so it is a virtue to repair this with good old-fashioned civil discourse, updated for today.
In “A Plea for Civil Discourse,” an excellent article in AAC&U’s journal Liberal Education (2013), Andrea Leskes describes civil discourse this way:
Discourse that is civil means that those involved
- undertake a serious exchange of views;
- focus on the issues rather than on the individual(s) espousing them;
- defend their interpretations using verified information;
- thoughtfully listen to what others say;
- seek the sources of disagreements and points of common purpose;
- embody open-mindedness and a willingness [to] change their minds;
- assume they will need to compromise and are willing to do so;
- treat the ideas of others with respect;
- avoid violence (physical, emotional, and verbal).
— Andrea Leskes, “A Plea for Civil Discourse: Needed, the Academy’s Leadership,” Liberal Education (AAC&U), 2013
How does a Humanist practice civil discourse? By applying the ethics and mindset of Humanism:
- Rehumanization. The people you disagree with are complex people with complex reasons, just like you. They think they are good people doing good things and making good points.
- Humility. You, dear reader, may be wrong. However right you are, your opponent is just as convinced they’re right. And however expert you are, your opponent has life experiences, and so a perspective, that you don’t. Treat every argument as a chance to learn, even if only to strengthen your position by understanding the other side better.
- Respect. Respect is a two-way street, earned as it is given. Neither of you is “just stupid”; you’re both complicated humans who don’t know everything. So no insults, no personal attacks, and no straw men.
- Self-improvement. This is the objective, not convincing the other side they’re wrong. An argument is a mutual quest for growth. Both sides can win if both learn, even if nobody changes their mind.
- Avoid echo chambers. They feel good, but they narrow your views, make you likelier to outgroup, and foster ostracization and splintering. Resist them by trying to bring your opponent closer instead of pushing them away.
- Check your sources. We have all been fooled by misinformation: fabricated stories, real news spun to mislead, and now AI-generated images, audio, and video convincing enough to fool almost anyone. Being taken in is discouraging, not shameful, so everyone in a discussion has a duty to check sources carefully and be ready to share them.
- Compassion for your fellow human is essential. Empathize with people even, and especially, when they get angry with you. People get angry for reasons you won’t know, so don’t assume bad intent, stupidity, or malice, even after a short exchange. Most people aren’t bad, just products of their upbringing and brain makeup, like you. Their anger shows how impassioned they are; they probably think you’re promoting something harmful. Have compassion, because emotions run high and you may be the next to get angry.
- Acceptance follows compassion. They are human as you are, and they can be wrong without being evil, just as you can. The point isn’t just winning the argument; it’s learning from each other, and valuing an opponent who offers a different perspective and challenges your echo chamber.
Consider this fictional, and obviously overheated, online exchange between an anti-abortion commenter and a pro-choice advocate who has posted a meme on her page saying “I’m pro-choice and I vote”:
Commenter: “Abortion is murder. They kill babies!” (This opening argument does not dehumanize the advocate.)
Advocate: “F*** you, it’s my body and my choice!” (Swearing back escalates things. And “my body, my choice” is exactly what he expected.)
Commenter: “F*** you, baby killer! It’s not a choice, it’s a child!” (He matches the swear and escalates with the dehumanizing “baby killer.”)
Advocate: “Your mother should have aborted you!” (Dehumanization flies back and forth; each now sees the other as less human. And he hears that line all the time, so he has a response ready.)
Commenter: “My mother didn’t abort me because she loved me! Aren’t you glad your mother loved you enough to keep you?” (A zinger aimed at her motherly instincts, easier to throw now that she has let herself be dehumanized.)
Advocate: “My mother wanted to have me. Your mother obviously wasn’t given that choice. How does it feel knowing your mother had no choice?” (Now she’s trying to hurt him back. He attacked her rights, her autonomy, and her mother. As far as she’s concerned, he’s scum and deserves it; he thinks the same of her.)
So what happened? The commenter thinks the advocate is a terrible person who doesn’t care about killing babies and insulted his mother. The advocate thinks the commenter is a harasser out to take away her rights. Neither thinks the other deserves patience or understanding. Nobody changed their mind. And MOST OF ALL, everything went exactly as they both expected!
Now try it differently. Same commenter, but this time he meets a Humanist advocate who uses understanding and kindness to break down barriers.
Commenter: “Abortion is murder. They kill babies!” (The extreme position that abortion is murder, but still no attack on the advocate herself.)
Advocate: “Hi! Welcome to my page, and thank you so much for caring about babies! Of course I don’t think abortion is murder, because I wouldn’t murder anyone, just like you wouldn’t! But I get that you are trying to do what you think is right, and I respect that, even if I fight you politically.” (NONE of this was expected. He has just been validated as a nice person and rebuked politically in the same breath.)
Commenter: “Well, yes, I do care, and so should you! They kill babies!” (He goes back to rhetoric, but with nothing to ricochet off, he doesn’t escalate.)
Advocate: “Well, of course I care! I care just as much as you do. The difference is that I’m not religious, and you are, right?” (Saying she cares just as much forces him to humanize her.)
Commenter: “Yes, I am a Christian, and God tells me abortion is murder!” (Now it’s a religious discussion. He is deep in unexpected territory, and still nothing has escalated.)
Advocate: “Well, I’m not a Christian. I’m an atheist and a Humanist. Most of medicine and most of the law don’t treat an early-stage fetus as a person, so for most of the world, this isn’t murder. And of course I have control over my own body, just like you have control over yours, and this is my decision. But I want to thank you for trying to do good with the information you have, and I hope you’ll look at what the rest of the world believes and consider whether your religious position is the only reasonable path. Have a nice day!” (She backs up her point with a citation.)
This time, the advocate has not dehumanized the commenter. She sees him as a complex person shaped by indoctrination: not evil, just wrong, and trying to do good. The commenter, meanwhile, has been disarmed of his rhetoric, forced to humanize her more than he wanted to, and now sees the issue as religious, not just “baby murder.”
The stakes are high, and their views are extreme opposites. On abortion, both would normally end up red-faced with anger. Not here. And there was a clear winner: the Humanist calmly and civilly dominated her opponent. He wasn’t expecting what she gave him, had no answer ready, and walked away seeing her as a more complete, reasonable person, with less excuse to dehumanize her and more reason to see her side.
That’s the move nobody is ready for.
The Weapon of Civil Discourse
Civil discourse is not code for “coddling the enemy.” It’s not about taking the high road when they “go low.” It’s not something to set aside because more urgent matters are on the table. It’s a powerful weapon to deploy strategically and consistently, and it should be your weapon of choice every time, because it:
- Disarms your opponent. Often all they have is rhetoric, and they don’t know how to respond to civility.
- Deflects their attempts to dehumanize you, forcing them to deal with you as a person, not as just another extremist yelling insults and nonsense (even if you’re only answering their own attack).
- Deflates their hate, so much that they might even like you, and see your side better, by the time you’re done. The extreme approach only adds fuel to their fire.
- Defeats their arguments, for real, by getting to the point and using your superior logic, while paving a path for them to come to your side with their pride intact.
Civil discourse belongs everywhere, especially in the most extreme circumstances. The more extreme the rhetoric and the more important the subject, the more you need a Humanist approach, even if your own position is extreme.
Summary
The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were not “just evil.” They thought they were doing good. Pretty much everyone does. Recognizing that is not sympathy; it’s strategy. Understanding why people do terrible things is how you defeat them, and the same goes for the far more ordinary opponents you meet online. Civil discourse isn’t about treating bad people the way you’d want to be treated; it’s about understanding that dehumanizing and demonizing your enemy will never change them.
Answering hate with civility will often give you a huge leg up, and it will never hurt your position. It disarms your opponent and the onlookers, and it gives you a gravitas no zinger or insult can buy. Most of all, it wins people to your side with knowledge while deepening your understanding of the other side. Civility is not something you grant your opponent; it’s a weapon you wield against them.
So take your politically extreme position. Use truthful, even blunt or painful words. Attack the ideas while you humanize the person, no matter how disturbing and dangerous their position, and talk to build bridges, not burn them. If your position is strong, civil discourse is your best weapon, and wielding it is a show of strength.