Part II | Outline
Category E | Perspectives
Topic 30 | Civil discourse versus the outrage industrial complex
The term “outrage industrial complex” was coined to describe patterns of contemporary political discourse (especially online discourse) that “strokes our own biases while affirming our worst assumptions about those who disagree with us.” Religious freedom is best promoted through facilitating and engaging in civil discourse, focused on the human dignity of all, rather than engaging with or appealing to the outrage industrial complex.
Destructive cycle of cultural climate change
- The outrage industrial complex creates and perpetuates the destructive cycle of cultural climate change. First, it encourages people to be outraged. Once people are outraged, they are incentivized to support, with their time and money, the content and outlets that validate and encourage that outrage. Outlets are thus incentivized, financially or otherwise, to produce more content aimed at encouraging and fomenting outrage.
- The root cause of this cycle is contempt of others and their ideas.
Eradicating the outrage industrial complex. Individuals can help eradicate the outrage industrial complex by
- starving the dealers of outrage by ignoring them and/or exposing their malice and misinformation;
- committing never to treat others with contempt;
- viewing the contempt we encounter as an opportunity to treat others with respect and dignity; and
- disagreeing better, rather than less.
Civil discourse
- Civil discourse is a way to “disagree better” and an antidote to the outrage industrial complex.
- Civil discourse is more than just being nice. It is “the practice of deliberating about matters of public concern in a way that seeks to expand knowledge and promote understanding." Contrary to the outrage industrial complex, it “aims to develop mutual respect, build civic trust, and identify common ground on matters of concern.”
Civil discourse generally involves
- listening to and trying to understand the perspectives of those with whom we disagree (rather than ignoring them, dismissing them, or holding them in contempt);
- explaining and even “vigorously advocating” our own views;
- and then “look[ing] for ways to work across differences that do not require us to abandon our [core] principles but do allow us to move forward.”
- Deliberative journalism is a close cousin to, and facilitator of, civil discourse, supporting “high quality deliberation and collective problem solving.”
Civil discourse, civic engagement, and civic charity in religious freedom advocacy
- Because the right to freedom of religion or belief involves our most deeply felt, deeply personal convictions, advocating for that right can evoke strong emotions. However, any advocacy of religious freedom is most effectively done through civil discourse, rather than through engagement with the outrage industrial complex.
- Advocacy for the right to freedom of religion or belief must be marked by civic charity, amity, mutual deference, mutual respect for human dignity, and efforts to moderate and unify.