Cancelling The Opinions Of Those You Dont Agree With Is A Slippery SlopeHeres A Better Option – Forbes

It's easy to reflexively cancel the opinions of people we disagree with. Here's why we shouldn't.

Last week I shared a post in my weekly newsletter about freedom of speech. The central point I made was that freedom of speech protects people from being legally prosecuted or sanctioned for their words. It does not, however, mean that a person can say whatever they want, without any consequences.

For example: if the CEO of a business states an opinion that is controversial or offensive to some, people are well within their right to refuse to buy from that business, or work at that company. But should they start shaming others to make that same decision?

When I published the post, I received several replies that pointed to the same question: just because people are allowed to ignore, silence or even attempt to antagonize people who disagree with them, does that mean they should? And what kind of culture does that behavior create?

Each of us has core valuesnon-negotiable principles that consciously or unconsciously guide our most important decisions. When somebody shares an opinion that sharply violates our core valueswhether its a political opinion, a lifestyle attitude, or otherwiseit can be natural to be upset, or even angry. We may even feel compelled to defensively turn to people who share our anger to vent as a group.

This type of reaction can be harmless. However, social media has exacerbated things by frequently showing us content that either confirms our beliefs, or is designed to anger us. Cordial debate is decidedly not part of the algorithm.

In this setting, difference of opinionand, to an extent, aspects of free speechare being weaponized to extremes. Youve probably seen somebody attack people they disagree with on social media or, elsewhere, cut off friendships and professional partnerships over political differences. In extreme cases, they might even threaten the person or attempt to get the person punished personally or professionally for their opinions and beliefs.

As a legal protection, freedom of speech doesnt stop this type of uncivil discourse. Whats missing from our marketplace of ideas todayespecially our online forumsare basic rules of engagement. Next time you encounter an opinion you fiercely disagree withespecially at workconsider these three strategies.

Invite dissent

While some truths are universal, we need to accept most issues dont have an objectively correct opinion. In order to grow, we need to be open to dissenting viewpoints, even if they make us uncomfortable.

We also need to acknowledge that while some of our opinions are guided by our non-negotiable principles, all of us have beliefs that we could be persuaded to change, assuming we are open to having our views challenged. Remember that, at one point, the prevailing worldview was that the Earth was flat.

Its important to surround yourself with people who will challenge you, rather than reflexively validate your opinions and actions. This is especially true in businessa CEO who is always certain they are correct, and hates having their beliefs challenged, will inevitably damage their organization by either stubbornly following the wrong course, or alienating talented people who refuse to be cheerleaders.

Next time you encounter a viewpoint you disagree witheven on a topic youre passionate aboutdo yourself a favor and at least listen and try to learn or understand. You may have your perspective changed for the better.

Embrace dissonance

In 1985, United States President Ronald Reagan made a controversial decision to lay a wreath at a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where former soldiers whod fought for Nazi Germany during World War II were buried. This action upset his friend and ally, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who was very critical of Regans action.

However, Peres did not make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and instead offered this offered sage wisdom: When a friend makes a mistake, he remains a friend, but the mistake remains a mistake.

Its not a great idea to associate closely with people who consistently violate or dont align with your core values. However, many of us have found ourselves in a situation where a person we like and respecta friend, co-worker, family member or colleaguesays or does something we disagree with. When this occurs, we encounter powerful force called cognitive dissonance, or the discomfort associated with holding two contradictory beliefs or behaviors in our minds at once.

In short, when someone close to us says something we consider wrong, we struggle to reconcile our feelings about them as a person with our disagreement with their belief. Today, too many people handle this dissonance by simply cutting the person out of their lives completely.

Instead, consider the value of Peres approach and challenge yourself to hold space for duality. Genuinely try to maintain your relationship with the other person, while acknowledging that you disagree, or wont always approve of that persons actions. This practice may salvage vital personal and professional connections. Its also an essential practice in the workplace.

Dont waste your energy

While many online disagreements simply fade, in some cases these conflicts can spill over into the offline world, with damaging results. Today, we see people respond to opinions they find offensive by harassing others online, contacting their employers, or even publishing their personal information online, a practice known as doxing. This behavior is dangerous and may have grave consequences. It can also threaten free speech.

If a person is sharing hate speech online or inciting violence with their words, its understandable to want to silence or shame them. But in cases the disagreement is simply over politics, or religion, or lifestyle practices that ultimately dont directly cause harm, its damaging for everybody involved to harass or attack others online. Its also inexcusable to threaten physical harm or encourage others to do the same.

People who share inflammatory opinions online are often seeking attention or engagement. Consider these types of posts to be landmines; they can either lay dormant, or explode on impact. Rather than taking the bait, its often more productive to attempt to bridge the divide, understand the persons point of view, and respectfully attempt to persuade them. Getting into fights online almost never leads to any improvement and certainly doesnt add value to your own life.

Instead of spending time with loved ones, or taking a nice walk outdoors, you are using your energy and limited hours in a day for what is almost always a zero-sum game. Not only can attacking others online cause lasting harm, it is a genuine waste of time and energy. Focusing on a solution is far more productive.

We ultimately dictate the terms of the marketplace of ideas we operate in, and its up to us to set rules of engagement that lead to a better conversation. Next time you see or hear something that conflicts with your views, it may be helpful to consider these tacticsdoing so may create a better outcome for all.

Robert is the founder and CEO ofAcceleration Partners. Join 200,000+ global leaders who follow his inspirational weekly newsletterFriday Forwardorinvite him to speak. Robert is also a Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling author. His new book,Friday Forward: Inspiration and Motivation to End Your Week Stronger Than It Started,releases September 1, 2020.