The Clash of Articles, Comments, and Responses!

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.

By Matti Kallo writer and journalist

Communication between people has become multiple and varied as a result of social media platforms. This includes communication in the form of dialogue, discussion, and exchange of ideas and opinions for the public benefit. Information has increased as social media has facilitated easy publishing of all kinds of article. These articles are e.g. cultural, social, historical and they express the writer’s point of view. Some platforms allow responses or comments on the articles. These responses and comments again express ideas or opinions on the subject and point of view of the original article. The responses are either adding new information or comments to correct part of the original article. This is beneficial for writers and readers together, i.e. every reader makes his say, and there are contradicting opinions. This is ok because discussion and diverging views are necessary. However, there are those who, unfortunately, write responses or commentaries which are far off from the crux of the topic. Some try to drag readers into futile polemics or useless arguments, as if they were opponents in a wresting arena with winners and losers. And some of the responses and comments contain defamation and offenses. They comment to incite the discussion to personal hostility.

Where opinions are proclaimed other than welcoming a debate for the benefit of all, the opposing opinion is subjected to attacks and exclusion, to a barrage of accusations and silver words and phrases that do not belong in civil debate. It is the absence of culture where differences are accepted and welcomed. Some writers or respondents in civilized countries support their articles and comments with sources to make them more credible and pass them on as scientific or academic research. The author or respondent believes that what he stated is the absolute truth and is not in dispute. He wants to impose his truth on the readers and take the reader into the captivity of his ideas – as if it were a brutal war.

Because of these ugly wars of words there are many readers who are reluctant to participate through responses or comments. They fear slipping into 2 mazes; one of them of the executioner, the other of the victim, or vice versa. In these ugly wars of words each tries to stab the other and thinks himself victorious. To inflame the content of the topic, there are those who pour fire on oil with provocative comments and ironic responses. They mock, belittle, or ridicule the person and not the idea of ​​the article as they feel superior to others. The topic loses its true value.

The noisier ones are those who troll in troubled waters, especially true in nationalistic, denominational, sectarian articles, or in the name conflict. They want to attract the largest possible number of spectators around the wrestling ring!! Despite some of them raising slogans like “difference of opinion does not spoil friendliness,” they do it without adhering to the rules of dialogue. They write, respond, and comment like George Bush did following the events of September 11, 2011, “Whoever is not with us is against us.” This is why the cultural arena, whether on social media platforms or in public life, has been plagued by the absence of a culture that accepts the other.

Recently, different readings of various historical articles have surfaced. The author of the article cites historical sources but only chooses sources that match his views and beliefs. Unfortunately, we find them full of fanaticism, racism, and sectarianism because some of those sources were written by people with permanent intellectual impairments and were not honest in recording events. If I make some observations about his article or when I present historical sources that contradict his sources, he raises the red card in my face! But if even an elite “book” like this is incapable of exchanging objective dialogue, then do we have the right to blame the ordinary reader!? The most absurd of these discussions are those between the various sects! Moreover, the most difficult discussions are those that come from supporters full of what some sectarian extremists are saying! The ideas of these people are linked to their personal interests. That is why we should avoid them as much as possible. Dialogue with them is not beneficial, and we must move away from the language of convulsions, shouting, and intimidation. Let us not turn the discussion arena into a battleground to attack others. We must not allow reactions and comments turn into quarrel and conflict.

I believe that allowing for differences in opinion is a culture and morality that not many people possess. I know well and readers share with us that ethics are not taught in colleges or institutes, nor sold, but rather acquired qualities. For this we need to engage in dialogue, discuss and exchange views with full transparency, disagree modestly, apologize calmly and humbly, and dress modestly when we separate.

Matti Kallo is a writer and journalist originally from the Syriac town of Bartella, Nineveh Plain in Iraq. Since 1995 he lives in Melbourne, Australia

Disclaimer: translated from the original Arabic. Here