Haters gonna hate: Can you be controversial without getting lots of hate?

In the light of some events regarding flag wars triggered by a dissent in opinion between the parts involved (you can read @suesa’s post for an insight into this kind of behavior), I was reminded of an article I wrote a couple years ago, about internet hate and how people react to online criticism. I thought some parts of it could be relevant for this situation so I revamped it a bit in order to discuss some highly relevant points for us as content creators and commenters in Steemit.

“I have a mantra: If you say things of consequence, there may be consequences. But the alternative is to be inconsequential,” the Op-Ed Project’s founder and CEO Katie Orenstein has said.

“My point is not that we should speak up at any cost, but rather that we can’t allow fear of negative feedback to determine what kind of voice we have in the world.” 

While this statement holds great importance and truth to it, I can’t help but pointing out that a factor that will greatly determine how your statement will be received is how you say it.

It is true that the more visible and outspoken you are, the more likely you will be to encounter people who dislike you or your views. However, people who get large amounts of hatred usually share some basic features: they can be very self-centered, often arrogant and condescending, and very vocal about ideas that could affect (and in many cases, offend) a large group of people. Feeling the need to broadcast absolutely everything that comes to one’s mind as soon as possible, as well as having a tendency to act out of emotion can also become an issue–since it exponentially increases the chances of saying or doing something stupid/offensive/that rubs the wrong way.

On top of that, many of these consistently controversial people are unapologetic, which seems to have become an euphemism for lacking the ability to recognize one’s mistakes and flaws, deciding to cast them instead as a product of other people’s jealousies or insecurities. Some other times, unapologetic seems to be used for passing rude behavior as just being “very confident and outspoken”, or as a byproduct of a personal quirk.

Take for example, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. While both of them are (were, in the case of Sagan) extremely outspoken, insightful scientists, with views that contradicted the belief systems of many people, one of them receives a lot more hatred than the other–and in case you are not familiar with them, I’ll tell you: it’s Dawkins.   

 Why is that? It all stems from the way they have behaved and expressed their ideas: while Sagan was firm and presented strong criticisms of highly controversial subjects like religion, pseudoscientific beliefs and politics, he always did it in a respectful way, devoid of visceral emotion and based on facts, evidence and sound arguments, rather than ad hominis attacks or mere denial or imposition of his views. When you read his books, you get the feeling that he is trying to cast light on some issue, rather than just mocking it and those who believe in it.

In contrast, Dawkins has no qualms on implying some people are just stupid, often infusing his discourse with arrogance and having condescending attitudes towards those who don’t share his beliefs or knowledge. That’s where all the difference lies.  

We can learn from such observations and apply it to our personal experience. Here are some of the lessons that I have learned for effective communication (especially when dealing with controversial ideas):

Put your ego aside.

Before committing to sending your daring input into the cyber-world, ask yourself: Why are you doing this?

• Do you genuinely want to explain or clarify something?
• Do you think that you have something important to say, or an idea that needs to be shared even though it might unpopular or controversial?
• … Or do you just want to give yourself a quick ego booster by projecting yourself on a higher position while putting others down?

Be honest with yourself. In case you determine that your intentions are not primarily driven by the latter option, you might proceed to the next point.

Don’t condemn, explain.

Being preachy is probably the least effective way to convince people about something. It seems like a no brainer, but many people rush into a heated argument with such haste that they overlook the fact that calling people stupid beforehand because they don’t agree with their views will not make them very receptive to what they have to say.

I find that the best course of action is just expressing your idea in a clear and neutral way, as if you were explaining it to someone who have never heard of it before. If you get questioned, listen to what they have to say, address their concerns and calmly explain why you think differently. You will accomplish a lot more by walking them through the reasoning that made you arrive to your conclusions than by creating division before the dialogue even starts. You might also learn something from them as well!

Be aware of the fact that some people will disagree with you.

I have witnessed how sometimes people express some blunt or controversial opinion, and then get annoyed if they get responses that don’t align with their point of view. What’s the sense in that?

As nice as it feels to get some external validation on one’s views, if I wanted to get only unconditional approval no matter what I say I will just buy one of these:

It sometimes happens that some commenters antagonize you just for the sake of it, or just write nonsense without any base or backup for it. However, when they provide well-structured and thoughtful criticism, it might help you grow. Getting your views challenged is a good exercise on thinking because it can point out some holes in your reasoning or perhaps bring to light different aspects that you had not taken into account before.

Don’t take things personally!

There is no need to feel like you are being personally attacked if someone doesn’t agree with what you stated. This is especially true when it comes to internet forums, blogs and social media, where the interaction one has with other users is mostly limited to whatever they choose to write on a given situation.

Most of the times–unless they are clearly trolling by trying to elicit an emotional reaction out of you– they are engaging with the opinion as presented by you, but not necessarily with you as a person (I might write more about this in a future post). Therefore, acting accordingly by not attaching too much emotion to one’s ideas is more likely to result in a fruitful discussion than acting all hurt and defensive from the get go.

Let's make an effort to keep Steemit as a censor-free platform, while having a space for respectful, productive and reasonable discussion.

Cheers,

Irime