by Don Hall

"It's coming out, man. The facts are starting to come out that the Capitol attack was actually Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters dressed up as Trump supporters. The whole thing was a smear job designed to get Trump impeached again!"

He was so ginned up that as he forcefully spoke, his mask did that thing, popping forward and down with each 'p' consonant until it was limply hanging under his chin.

Do I argue with this idiot? Do I even bother to point out the complete bullshit he’s spewing? Do I even have the energy to respond to this string of words stitched together with conspiratorial grievance and a pathological need to be the victim in this whole thing?

"Yeah. So what?"

"Huh? So what? That's what you have to say is so what?"

"Yup. So what? As in 'so what about this information you relate has anything to do with me or mine?' and 'so what are you suggesting I do about it?'. So what?"

"Do? DO?! It seems obvious to me."

"OK. So what are you going to do about it?"

"You're a sheep, man."

"Yeah. So what do you suggest be done about it? What's the plan?"

"We have to prosecute them! We have to force a new election that is FAIR!"

"OK. How are 'we' gonna do that?"

"So you agree this is a HUGE problem?"

"Sure. How are 'we' gonna deal with this dire circumstance?"

"Fuck. I don't know. It's just so much crap, you know?"

"It is definitely a lot of crap."

Culture is defined by the shared values among a group of people. These values are represented and supported by shared narratives.

In order to be shared values, people within the culture have to find agreement on the fundamentals of the narrative. No agreement, no shared values, and the result is a series of competing cultural narratives. The result is a whole room full of people screaming at each other their sometimes bizarre, sometimes lunatic tribal memes.

The issue with social media is that these competing 'truths' spread further and louder and are almost always anti-establishment and contrarian. These narratives get repeated the most often, and our culture becomes one of contention rather than agreement, a battle of ideas rather than a search for common goals.

"So what? That's your response? So you don't care that the police in this country are uniformly racist and kill black people with no accountability?"

"OK. So what do you think should be done about it?"

"Wait a minute. You don't believe cops are racist? Check that white privilege, dude."

"OK. White privilege has been checked. So what?"

"So what?"

"So what's the plan?"

"We have to march and organize. People have to know that black people aren't taking this any more. I'll bet you're one of those assholes who compares the BLM protests in the summer with the Capitol riot, right?"

"Nope. Big difference between looting and burning local stores and taking over a section of a city and participating in an insurrection of the Capitol at the behest of the president."

"Exactly right."

"So march and protest? Maybe loot some Targets? That's the plan?"

"No. There's a lot more. Defund the police for one thing."

"Cool. How are we gonna do that? March, protest, and loot until the powers defund the police?"

"Eventually they have to listen."

"Do they?"

Finding common ground is hard. Especially in a time when social media has made it dopamine-friendly to argue about everything and in more vitriolic and alienating terms. I can post my opinion on the proper method on baking sourdough bread and in minutes have someone threaten me with death by sharp object. 

Our natural tendency to want to be right is amplified by the silos of information and misinformation of social media. This is combated by the simple reality that agreement begets more agreement. In this day and age, the very act of agreement is revolutionary.

A random conspiracy theorist, a zealot for an ideology, wants to explain to you their worldview with a sense that you have to listen to them. Their perspective comes from a genuine alarmist focus and a sense of urgency. The problem is hyperbolic in nature and the fact that you can't see the fact that this issue is the one to bring about the End of All Things Good and Right creates a tone of argument before you've said anything in response.

"So what?" derails the urgency train. It interrupts the chain of information they are prepared to unleash upon you. 

Climate change is destroying the planet!

So what?

[RECORD SCRATCH]

Now they have to explain why their issue is so urgent. Agree with them that it is urgent and then follow up again.

So what is your solution?

Highlighting the problem is emotional; solving the problem is practical. Forcing the zealot into shifting gears from the emotional to the practical defuses the Talking AT You to Talking TO you.

Two things to understand: common ground has to incorporate dialogue rather than monologue and few cult members are in practice thinking in terms of feasible, pragmatic solutions which is why "burning it all down" seems to be such an easy solution. It doesn't solve the problem but it fuels the emotional engine and validates the urgency.

Agreement moves things into dialogue. Asking questions rather than debate. It likewise moves things into less proselytizing and more pragmatics.

Agreeing with lunacy is difficult because most of us would rather be right than actually solve our problems. It's more fun to be right about the complaint than cede authority to a solution.

For example, the problem of climate change could be solved by encouraging Big Oil to make more money investing in Clean Energy than the current model. Make them the heroes, provide them incentive to solve the problem and the problem gets solved. This isn't what most eco-warriors want because they'd rather punish Big Oil than solve the problem.

The question at the end of "so what?" is this: Are you more interested in being right and serving ego or in solving the problem you are so passionate about?

Give it a shot. Avoid social media because the very form is an obstacle to meaningful dialogue. It's more work but if the problems are worth solving, a bit more work is necessary.