In mid-December, an article I wrote for another publication on the story behind “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” prompted an email from a reader disputing some of my facts. His source was Wikipedia, which my editors at that publication had told me to avoid. My source, which included a link, clashed with his information.

At any rate, having made his point, the reader ended his protest by writing that the editors should “fire whoever wrote this story they clearly don’t honor your mission.” He asked no questions about the discrepancies between his source and mine. That his source might be off-base or that I might need the income derived from writing for this publication apparently never occurred to him. His solution was simple: “Off with his head.”

A few days later, I noticed that a fellow writer friend of mine encountered a similar scenario through an article posted on Substack. The comments on the article were mixed, but the negative ones seemed to miss the point of the article and dismiss truth in the process.

Such reader responses teach three valuable lessons for all of us as we interact with others online, whether through news articles or social media posts.

Read and Reread Before Responding

Is our critique on-target? Does the response we’re about to post correspond with the writer’s intent and description? Are we engaging with that argument rather than sidling around to make our own points? If we fail to engage, no matter what we say, we’re going to look foolish.

Ask Questions

It’s frequently more effective to post questions about the writer’s premise and use of evidence rather than launching some all-out assault on their veracity or their evidence.

Long ago, I heard writer and Christian apologist Os Guinness deliver an address at UNC-Asheville. Following his lecture, a student asked how he could handle professors whose left-leaning views allowed little room for disagreement in the classroom. “Ask questions,” was the gist of Guinness’ answer. “Ask them sincerely and politely but ask how that professor reached those world views and opinions.”

Since then, I’ve employed this tactic of inquiry with any number of people, including my conservative friends, with excellent results. Questions lead that person and other readers to narrow in on the issue, to define terms, for example, all too often viewed as familiar and agreeable to all. The same tactic works in a comments section. The gentleman who responded to my “Rudolph” piece could have simply written, “Are you sure about your sources?” and then added his evidence from Wikipedia.

Practice Civility

Finally – and this is standard advice for social media etiquette – avoid personal attacks. Debate the point, not the person. By jumping to conclusions, for example, my respondent accused me of lying rather than wondering if perhaps I was mistaken. On social media, cyberbullying with its ad hominem insults, harassment, and even threats erases any chance for productive discussion. Calling someone with whom you disagree a fascist, then dusting off your hands and marching proudly away is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

America needs honest and civil debate. Whatever their other talents, many of our politicians and celebrities have failed miserably to provide worthy examples in this realm. That leaves it up to us to bring reason, respect, and courtesy to the internet and the public square.

In “C.S. Lewis & the Art of Disagreement,” writer and Lewis scholar Michael Ward includes reminiscences from George Watson, who had attended Lewis’s lectures and later was his colleague. Lewis loved debate and argument, but as Ward notes, “Lewis reviled many dogmas but seldom, to Watson’s knowledge, those who held them. He had ‘vigour without venom; he was generous.’”

In this new year, let’s aim for generosity in our dialogues and interactions with others.

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News.

Image credit: blackwhite.pictures