Deëscalation tip #54

It's not up for debate.

If you can help reduce escalation toward harm when you and your group are going to be involved in any public event, one of the key pieces of advice, if not instruction, is Do not argue with those with whom you disagree. 

Indeed, this is a key admonition issued nationally by Indivisible, an organization focused not on proving how radical it is, but rather on actually achieving good outcomes in our democracy. They say to their many chapters across the US: 

"Avoid engaging in conversation or any verbal exchange with aggressive, hostile individuals. Participants should be encouraged, if in an uncomfortable situation, to create physical distance, and notify event organizers."

This is not only a way to pre-deëscalate a great deal of potentially harmful escalatory interchanges, it is a great way to avoid wasting time and energy on activities that tend to achieve nothing. This is shown by paying attention to what we know about the Spectrum of Allies. 

When we can do an action, or send a respectful but assertive message, that is pointed at those who support the cause but are not really active, it can help move them closer to actual engagement, even as it nudges those who are neutral a bit closer to agreeing with us, at the same time it might assist in changing the positions of those who disagree closer to neutral, and, hopefully, helping to deactivate those who disagree with us. In other words, targeting your message toward a much broader swath of the populace can inch everyone a bit closer to you even as it defangs the most rabid opponents. Calling others in rather than calling them out can attract without alienating.

But debating them in the street or any other public environment tends to have the opposite effect of simply causing them to solidify their opposition to pretty much all you say. Plus, it can escalate them toward possible harm, compounding the ineffectiveness of arguing with the most vocal, excited, or even enraged opponents. 

But if arguing with them is not advised, how can we engage in debate that can illuminate the facts, the arguments, and the evidence? 

Clearly, it's not working in the spotlights of the political arena, which is looking increasingly like a pack of jackasses bent on braying and kicking rather than achieving much. 

This has given rise to initiatives like Braver Angels, citizen-to-citizen civil discourse efforts to be able to dialog across difference. If it seems nearly impossible to engage in helpful public conversations based on disagreeing without being disagreeable, people are figuring out how to do so with ground rules that keep it civil and that strive toward seeking to reduce fear and loathing of each other even as important topics are aired. 

Returning to an ability to actually converse, even about difficult topics, without escalating toward harm, is going to be crucial if we wish to save our democracy. The values of deëscalation are enormous in many ways.