Many people talk long and loud

 The many moderates who really want to understand the issues and the reasons on both sides of an issue are deprived of any rational way to decide what to do, because they cannot learn from uncivil tirades. They lose faith in both sides and in news sources that align with either side. Moreover, our government becomes less able to function. Why should I work with someone who calls me stupid and crazy? How could I know how to compromise with such disrespectful opponents? Because incivility has both costs and benefits, it is often hard to tell when it is justified overall. Insults are bound to remain popular for those who see their benefits as greater than their costs. Meanwhile, the rest of us will suffer those costs. 

Partly by increasing antagonism, but also partly by silencing reasoning in ways that prevent us from overcoming our antagonisms. What is silenced is reason rather than people. Many people talk long and loud, but that does not mean that they communicate or exchange ideas. Too many people talk too much without any reasoning. Often people pretend to give reasons without really supplying any decent reason whatsoever. Too many people have given up on providing, expecting, or even listening to reasons. The resulting silence has been well documented.2 Research has also shown that disadvantaged groups are more often and more fully silenced than dominant groups.3 However, silence infects both sides in political debates. As a result, they both quit trying to reason with each other. Even without talking together, people can still access arguments on the opposing side if they listen to news and commentary from the same sources as their opponents. However, few people want to get their news from sources that abuse and distort their political views. They reject such sources as subjective or even fake news. 

Most people prefer to have their views supported, so they choose news sources that will back up their predilections. On the other hand, Republicans watched Fox News 11% more than Democrats in 2004 but 30% more than Democrats in 2008.4 Both sides had turned to different news shows in only four short years! Many today get their news from the Internet. The most common tools for choosing which parts of the Internet to access are search engines and social media. When someone Googles a topic, search engine lists sites about that topic in a certain order determined by an algorithm. The most common search engines give priority to sites that this user has visited often and is likely to rate highly. If users go more often to sites listed on top, as most people do, then they are bound to end up visiting more sites that support their political views. Many are not even aware that algorithms can manipulate them into echo chambers. Both sides end up in echo chambers, and they hear nothing that comes from outside their chambers. The edge of each person's echo chamber is where silence begins.6  Some brave souls do seek conflicting news sources. However, their motive is often simply to find mistakes there in order to criticize those sources instead of learning from them. They are not really listening but only waiting to pounce. 

One master of this technique was Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show. He could always find short clips that made Fox News look silly. Of course, these clips were often unfair because they had been ripped out of context. Stewart's excuse was that his show was comedy, not serious news, but he still set a tone for his viewers. When they did listen to opposing news sources, each side was trained to laugh at the bad parts instead of learning from the good parts of their political opponents. If fellow citizens get their facts as well as analysis and commentary from conflicting sources, then it is no wonder that they end up consistently supporting opposite positions. If opponents are so ignorant, there is little to be gained by asking them why they believe what they do. That is one explanation for why many people today have stopped asking each other for reasons. Another part of the explanation for the demise of questioning is cultural. In some circles, it is disdained as naïve or impolite to ask people why they think and act as they do. One example is religion. 

Religious beliefs affect people's stands on many crucial and divisive issues. But what happens when a Muslim person walks into the room? I have never heard anyone ask that question in such a situation, maybe because they do not expect any useful or reasoned answer. Instead, people either avoid the subject of religion and talk about something else or they avoid the Muslim and assume that he or she is sympathetic with terrorism. Neither approach accomplishes anything. And the same goes for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Consider also gay marriage. Among my liberal friends in Europe and the United States, if anyone were to say that governments should not recognize gay marriages, then that person would immediately be labeled a bigot and ostracized. If anyone bothered to ask Why shouldn't gay marriages be recognized? the questioner would be ready to jump all over any answer that a conservative gave. They would not listen sympathetically, interpret charitably, or look for any truth in that opponent's reply. In return, conservatives dismiss gay marriage as disgusting, immoral, or unnatural, and then they dismiss its advocates as dupes of gay advocacy groups.