The Death of Civility and Humanity in our Online Conversations
By sameer
Comments 0
08 Oct 2025
AZHAR HUSSAIN TANTRAYSpending time on social media, particularly on X, has given me an unfiltered view of how public conversations have changed over the years. What once felt like a platform for dialogue and exchange of ideas has now turned into a space of constant confrontation.The tone, the patience and even the willingness to listen seem to have diminished. Civilized debate has been replaced by digital duels and I often wonder how we lost the simple art of talking to one another.When I share my thoughts or opinions online, I expect people to agree or disagree. That is the essence of public conversation. Yet what I see now is anger pretending to be argument. People are no longer responding to understand; they respond to attack. The intent is not to engage but to outshout, to humiliate or to prove moral superiority.I have noticed that even the calmest posts can trigger disproportionate outrage. The algorithms love it because outrage means engagement. A thoughtful reply may earn a few likes but a fiery outburst will almost always go viral.The pace of these exchanges leaves no room for reflection. A thought forms, fingers move and the reaction is out before one can even pause to consider its tone. In the real world, when we speak face to face, there are pauses, expressions and emotional cues that guide us. Online those signals are gone. We type into a void and in that void empathy disappears. I have seen decent people, friends even, turn into unrecognizable versions of themselves simply because a disagreement escalated in the comment section.What troubles me most is how intolerance has disguised itself as conviction. People believe they are defending truth but often they are only defending their version of it. On X you are either right or wrong, loyal or dishonest, with us or against us. There is no middle ground. Nuance does not trend. Moderation is not exciting. So we have started performing outrage instead of practicing understanding.There is also a psychological side to this that fascinates me. Behind a screen people feel invincible. Anonymity creates distance and distance weakens restraint. You can insult someone you will never meet and there are no real consequences. Scientists call this the online disinhibition effect but I just see it as the loss of accountability.Words that we would never dare to say in person are typed casually and sent into the world. Once they are out there, they stay recorded, retweeted and remembered.This constant friction takes a toll. It exhausts people, isolates them and erodes the very purpose of being online, which is to connect. I have seen friendships end and conversations break down simply because neither side was willing to listen. Sometimes I scroll through threads and wonder if we even want dialogue anymore or if we are just addicted to the thrill of the argument.Over time I have learned that restraint is not weakness. Silence is not surrender. Sometimes not replying is the most dignified response. Before posting I ask myself if my words will add value or just add to the noise. That small pause often changes everything.We cannot blame technology entirely. The platforms amplify what already exists in us. The screen does not make us angry; it only reveals that we were already impatient, intolerant or unwilling to listen. If we want to reclaim civility online, we have to begin with ourselves. It is about remembering that there is a real person on the other side with a story, a struggle and reasons for believing what they do.Social media is not the enemy. It is the mirror. And if we do not like what we see, perhaps it is time to reflect, not react.(Author is a columnist)
Leave a comment