The Slippery Slope from Disagreement to Dehumanization

 

What makes America great is its diversity. Which is why it’s so troubling that incidents like Charlie Kirk’s murder have engendered such an unwillingness to engage in good faith with those who have differing beliefs. As I wrote earlier this week, as a sound bite nation, we are looking for snippets of content that harden rather than challenge our existing views, and then to cocoon with those who share those views rather than welcome and learn from those different from us. 

In a healthy society, community, and campus, there ought to be a lot of disagreement. Where there is lack of disagreement, there is far less room to grow and improve. Which is bad enough. But things feel worse than that now. Consider this sequence of statements: 

1. I disagree w/someone’s views

2. I deeply disagree w/their views

3. I despise their views

4. I so despise their views that I despise them

5. I so despise them that I wish them ill

6. I so wish them ill that I'm happy when bad things happen to them

7. I would be so happy when bad things happen to them that I'll directly do it 

Note the shift from #3 to #4, and the slippery slope that follows. There’s a reason for this. When disagreement devolves into dehumanization, it becomes easier to disagree and distance further, which is bad enough, but it also becomes easier to wish ill and do ill to others. 

Consider also this sequence of statements:

1. There has been a long history of injustice and dehumanization in this country.

2. That history has been baked into a lot of today's structures, norms, and beliefs.

3a. One side acknowledges these first two statements and seeks acknowledgement and action in response, and feels aggrieved and even threatened when acknowledgement is not made and action is opposed...

3b. ...with things getting to such a boiling point that violence against the other side is undertaken and celebrated.

4a. Another side downplays or denies these first two statements and is incredulous that acknowledgement and action would be needed for a problem that either doesn't exist or isn't as bad as they think...

4b. ...and as a result there is continued inequality and oppression and violence, and no recognition or empathy in response.

Once again we see the slippery slope, from 3a to 3b and from 4a to 4b, where we go from coexisting with different viewpoints to denying the humanity of the other side. The former is a healthy characteristic of a pluralistic democracy. The latter is an environment in which we are no longer willing to extend basic human existence to others different than us. Denying that people need to say "Black lives matter" is denying an assertion of the right to exist as a human being; so is calling for violence against right-wing leaders and followers and celebrating when that violence is actualized. It is no surprise, in that climate, that the cold-blooded murder of a fellow human being is no longer cause for horror but a platform for grievance and rage.

We’ve seen our share of echo chambers and segregated news sources and tribal behavior. But lately people are acting in a more base manner than intellectual disagreement and social sorting. One side is so aggrieved by the other side’s positions that they feel physically threatened and in some cases are physically threatened. Another side is so incredulous that murder is not being condemned or is even being celebrated, refusing to give space for conflicted if not angry feelings towards someone whose words have been used to sow division and hatred. This is not a good sign for a functioning pluralistic society. 

As it relates to Charlie Kirk, one side laments that he was committed to the sort of discourse that engaged young people and built bridges. Another side counters that his words and techniques were inflammatory to the point of hate-mongering. His death will not be the last flashpoint incident that stirs the pot. Is there hope that people will be able to live side by side while disagreeing, or are we destined to either full-blown separation or outright conflagaration?