This weekend I spent more time scrolling social media than I care to admit. On an intellectual level, I understand that the algorithms feed me content based on my preferences. Yet, I had a real “ah-ha” moment in my long-weekend scrolling haze.
My Social Media Driven “Ah-Ha” Moment
What I discovered when I began to pay attention was a little shocking. Since the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, only anti-gun rants have appeared in my feed. I’ve not been shown a single post from the other side — not one. And this is on a platform where I’m not limited to seeing posts from people I “like” or follow — rather, I see posts that the platform “recommends.”
While I’m happy to see my feed filled with content that makes sense to me and I agree with, it was startling to wake up to the algorithm in action. It forced me to realize that, like me, people on all sides of the issue are only seeing content that reinforces their views.
Clearly, this leads to more partisan, entrenched beliefs and divisiveness. And Congress isn’t making any headway, so it will be left to regular people like you and me to have important conversations if we’re ever to get out of the hellhole we’re in.
Fundraising is About Improving the World (And Listening)
Why am I writing about this instead of fundraising?
Fundraising, by my definition, is about making the world a better place. And right now, I believe the world is getting worse — not better — particularly when it comes to our children.
It’s our job as fundraisers to do everything we can to repair the world. These days, that might start with listening to people with whom you don’t agree.
One Thing We Can All Agree On
We have a problem in the United States. People are dying in record numbers. As a nation, we are the world leader in mass shootings. This is not exactly a statistic Americans should be proud of.
So how can we have a conversation — a dialogue — so the other side (whichever side you’re on) will listen thoughtfully?
As fundraisers, we are taught to listen our way to a gift. The incentive there is to secure a boost of funding for your cause. But ending mass shootings is a cause we can all get behind. Staunch defenders of the Second Amendment don’t want to see these things happen either.
So maybe, since we all want to end these types of violent, senseless acts, we can learn to listen our way to a solution, just as we listen our way to a gift.
Facts Both Sides Acknowledge
Let’s start by looking at the facts we can all agree on:
- Many people in this country want to own guns, and that is their Constitutionally-given right.
- Gun culture is a unique part of our national identity, history and heritage.
- Too many people — especially children and people of color — are dying every day from gun violence.
- We have more mass shootings than any other modern country in the world.
Those are the facts. I don’t think the either side would dispute them.
Finding Common Ground to Begin a Dialogue
We all want to see these mass shootings come to an end. Instead of basing the conversation around taking away guns versus Second Amendment rights, let’s instead focus on this issue from the standpoint of public safety.
A Somewhat Flawed Analogy as a Model
When record numbers of people started getting maimed and killed in car accidents in the last century, people banded together to make driving and the auto industry safer. No one took cars off the roads or away from their owners. The public rallied until we created a national system for providing licenses, rules of the road, automobile safety and mandatory insurance for car owners.
True, there was no anti-safety regulation lobby at the time which was actively steering the conversation away from regulating automotive safety. But keep in mind — today’s gun lobby doesn’t speak for the overwhelming majority of people (and that includes people on both sides).
Fighting Against Enragement for Engagement
So if regulating guns, like we do automobiles, seems like a win-win solution, why aren’t more moderate gun owners willing to entertain it?
I’d argue that it’s because it’s being drowned out of their social media feeds.
Social media tends to amplify the opinions of the minority. Those on the fringes of both sides — the “ban all guns” folks as well as the “they’re gonna take our guns” folks do NOT represent the majority of Americans. But because the algorithm thrives on enragement for engagement, it can often seem like those amplified views represent the majority.
With that in mind, I imagine I’m unable to consider some other reasonable solutions that gun advocates regularly see in their feeds simply because they don’t show up in mine.
Getting Out of Our Comfortable Bubbles
Being willing to leave our insulated echo chambers is the first step. But it’s a necessary step to open a dialogue. Each of us needs to put the outrage aside and really take the time to hear what the other side has to say.
I’m convinced, there is consensus to be found on this issue. We need to come together and become a force that’s more powerful than the gun lobby.
Let’s Have a Discussion… and Listen
Is this a fundraising post? Yes! It’s about listening skills and kindness. It’s about considering others’ feelings and coming together to solve problems and make the world a better place.
We all want this sort of senseless gun violence to end. And I’m convinced there are many steps we can take — provided we’re willing to listen to each other and put our heads together. Common ground does exist… let’s find it!
On that note, let’s have a civil and thoughtful discussion in the comments of this post. Let me know your thoughts and what we might do concerning:
- How to better listen to one another
- Breaking ourselves (and others) out of our tribal bubbles
- Ways we can come together to solve the mass shooting crisis
So, comment away! Let’s start the conversation.
While I agree with the premise that we need to do something, but the issue is not guns, it is a lack of discipline and the lack of a recognition that mental health is important and is needed at all levels. When we live in a society that seems to allow anything and everything as ok as long as you “don’t push your beliefs on others” rather than focusing on the fact that there is a moral standard that is in play that is from outside our realm of humanness.
There are absolutes of right and wrong and that adherence to those absolutes is not up for debate. Until we begin to recognize that without enforcing those moral boundaries, people are unsure about who they are and what is acceptable and the result is fear, depression and all things evil. Until we recognize that there is one true God and that God created us for relationship within the boundaries of free will and choice, but that some choices are wrong and have a consequence and others are right and also come with a consequence (although positive rather than negative). In addition, we don’t really have any rights without responsibilities.
But enforcing a person’s right to make bad choices without imposing the consequence or removing a person’s rights when they do not uphold their responsibilities, leads to chaos and confusion. Until we get back to recognizing that although there are many religions, they all have a fatal flaw except one. That fatal flaw is that we as humans are basically good. But the truth of the matter is that we all have a fatal flaw that is within us that is rebellion to authority and unless we submit that flaw to the grace of God and reccognize that we all have the capacity for evil and without God, we do not have a means to resist, we will forever see these problems as being fixable within our own context rather than recognizing that only God and his provision of the Holy Spirit gives us the capacity to live and do good.
David,
I appreciate your sentiments about moral boundaries. But not everyone’s belief is the same even that there is a God. So, if we can take religion out of this subject and focus on our moral obligations as a society and the laws that govern us, then I think we can start the conversation. My comments are in a separate comment.
Wow, David, you sure put a lot in there. I believe I hear what you are saying and I am trying to find where the room is for you to accept that other people may have a different world view that is, in fact, equally valid as yours. I think we need to find the grey space, as it were, that we can share our views while understanding and appreciating that other people move differently in the world, with different thoughts and ideas that guide them.
In terms of finding common ground, I appreciate that you value mental health and recognize its importance for our society’s wellbeing. As someone who works in the mental health field, it pains me that mental health (illness) is blamed for what is wrong in the world and there is a lack of compassion for people living with mental health conditions. I hope I have interpreted your words correctly, that mental health affects us all in one way (or more). We need to have the ability and the willingness to make mental health care available to all. Thanks for raising your voice against the stigma of mental health conditions.
Thank you, Amy, for sharing these thoughts. It’s unconscionable that we have not been able to get traction on making changes to protect lives.
First, I’d highly recommend that people watch New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s commencement address at Harvard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOg7FJBBbJc. She’s thinking along these same lines. Her country took decisive action after the murders in the mosques in Christchurch and, though the circumstances in NZ are different, there are lessons we can learn. Further, PM Ardern puts responsibility on each of us as individuals but also on the social media entities. I also think we need to find a way to set up ground rules for engaging in dialogue so that people can feel safe, listen, and be heard. We also need to buy into the goals of finding common ground and working toward solutions.
I’d love having a “bullshit-o-meter” so that we can stop the blatant lies that are hampering discussion and exacerbating divisions. Maybe in a more civil atmosphere we can question the basis of these assertions without fearing retribution. We need to foster the spirit of inquiry and curiosity.
In the interest of clarification, I’d like to edit one of your facts. Although the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, it is not an absolute right and can lawfully be regulated. There was an interesting opinion article in the NYT yesterday by two Supreme Court law clerks who worked on the DC v. Heller case, which addressed firearm ownership (“We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America is getting Heller Wrong,” 5/31/22). The bottom line is this: although the case determined that “government may not disarm citizens in their homes,” “…the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.” So people need to stop hiding behind misinterpretations of case law and accept that we can take action.
I don’t know that I’ve offered anything concrete but I appreciate the opportunity to share ideas and to have discussion.
Thank you, Susan! You are exactly right. Great article in the times by those two clerks.
Amy,
Thank you so much for your attention to how social media dictates what we see on our feeds. I totally agree that there needs to be a way for all sides to come to the table and work together for public safety for everyone.
One of the issues is that many try to find a simple answer to a VERY complex problem. It isn’t just about mental illness; it isn’t just about the right to own a gun. As you stated, the subject needs to be addressed as a public safety issue. We all are given certain rights but these rights come with responsibilities and obligations. I’m tired of so many people feeling like they are having their rights taken away.
I’m at a loss for how to get more people from all sides to figuratively ‘lay down their guns’ and come to the table.
Here are some ways in which I am listening.
1. I am listening to my elected officials as to how they are addressing the situation. I will email them as to how I feel and offer solutions. And I will use my privilege of voting.
2. I will support organizations that are on the front lines of building community/fighting for public safety – including kids and teachers.
I would love to have a conversation with anyone and everyone who feels differently than I do. But the loudest voices should be the ones that go to the voting booths.
I know this is more of a ramble. I look forward to others ideas and suggestions.
Thank you for lending your voice to the conversation, Rhonda! Vote, vote, vote. And support those organizations working for public safety and fighting for teachers and children. I agree!
There are some easy solutions, but generally, the public’s interest recedes as the media attention to the slaughter of children recedes.
1. Overturn this: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
2. Institute a waiting period for purchasing a gun
3. Mandatory insurance that will heavily compensate victims of gun violence/accidents
4. Absolute background checks that reach across state lines
5. Mandatory safe storage of firearms and ammunition.
I could go on…I’ve been working on this issue for over 20 years–Columbine
Jo Ann, I appreciate your comments, ideas, and dedication to this issue. Thank you!
I appreciate you posting about this, Amy, and within the construct that media amplifies our country’s emotional divisions. Human nature practically demands us to find a group when the problem seems so vast and dynamic and messy. I believe that when faced with real, ugly fear, we pick a team to join, be that a faith team, a political team, or a newscaster team ( (isn’t that the basis of the algorithms, ratings, etc.). And once we choose a team, we often stop solving the source of the problem at its very roots. We are so much more comfortable in our team. Cognitive dissonance keeps us from wavering from the team channel/platform. Groups help us feel safer. But groups shield us from hearing a different point of view when it is so easy to stay on my team platform. This weekend, I picked up Malcolm Gladwell’s “Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about People We Don’t Know.” Ultimately, we know that people of all “teams” have more in common than not.
No one (who is rational) wants to see children killed in classrooms or war break out or justice not served. It’s the analysis and solutions of the issues that bind us to platforms, and therefore, we do not move forward in a unified way. These safe boxes we keep ourselves in do not lend us the motivation to do the grueling work of listening, compromising, and stopping unjust, unbelievable deaths of our children, neighbors, and friends. Guns are the means, but probably not the root problem. I’m afraid I have to disagree that gun control is the only solution – war and mass shootings are not “accidents” caused by speed and carelessness. There is a much more significant problem here to solve. Fear of strangers or “others” creates more fear/anger, and I think fear leads to gun violence. I think the solution has to lie outside of this never-ending fear of each other.