Social media rants must be countered with rational arguments

Toward the middle of November, the day before transportation uncertainties and general unrest forced the closure of schools and other educational institutions in Hong Kong, I experienced the malignancy of unfettered social media at a most personal level.

A social media group of school moms I belong to, by virtue of our sons going to the same form in the same school, exploded with anxiety. Hapless parents exchanged notes about the dangers their children navigated that morning to reach school with the city’s transportation network practically taken hostage.

Some boys had traveled for hours to reach the safety of school and for as long as they were on the road, their parents were fearing the worst. It was a nerve-racking morning for many, made worse by the fact some parents were freely peddling rumors without stopping to verify facts. And when conflicting rumors and fake news compete for attention among frenzied people fearing the worst for their children, the first casualty is usually rational thinking and second, common courtesy.

Soon enough, people were divided along ideological lines, acrimony erupted and just before civility was completely abandoned, sensible group moderators somehow managed to remind members of the necessity to stick to matters that strictly concerned our children. Thanks to them, and the subsequent collective realization that children mattered more than making arbitrary points to complete strangers, this virtual group of real adults finally held its tongue and the discussion returned to school-specific safety measures for our boys. It was more or less civilly conducted this time.

A microcosm of contemporary Hong Kong society - antagonistic and full of convictions with little room for a contradictory point of view? Quite so.

If adults, parents actually, allow hearsay to cloud judgment so completely, how can Hong Kong expect its young and impressionable to keep their head and shape responses to events rationally?

In any society, dialectics play a big role. So that the faculty to think rationally in order to enunciate and/or defend a point of view or shoot down another is developed early in children, every school has a debating team. Any adult who used to be a student debater or is the parent of one knows the satisfaction that comes from championing or critiquing a point of view armed with well-framed arguments buttressed by solid research and verified facts. Of course, oratory plays a role too but even the least intellectually inclined member of the audience knows that it is unimpeachable logic - and not random point of view - that carries the day.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen tells us: “… let me make a brief remark on the distinct roles that arguing plays in the working of a society. At the risk of oversimplification, I would like to distinguish between two distinct functions: affirmation and critique. Affirmation is associated with voice, and in particular with enunciation of claims as well as principles. Critique goes beyond that and insists on scrutinizing what is being voiced.”

Rationality, after empathy, is the most important behavioral component that can keep arguments healthy. And, the health of arguments depends a lot on critical thinking and not on unthinkingly parroting alien views. That’s why education matters.

Litterateur Umberto Eco, writes: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”

Idiocy is not something we should ideally aspire to. It is necessary to train our children in the nuances of critical thinking so that they can rise above herd mentality and understand what’s best for them.

No society deserves its legion of idiots.

The author is web editor, in charge of www.chinadailyasia. com.