I was thirteen when I secretly created my first Facebook account, motivated more by fear of being excluded than by any sense of rebellion. At the time, I saw the world in simpler terms: I believed that sharing my thoughts in public debates was a way of contributing.

One particular exchange that stood out to me was with a man who claimed that if women would just cover up, the problem of wake teasing would be alleviated. I had seen enough to know that it wasn’t true – I had also seen women wearing burqas and hijabs being harassed. I said it. The response – swift and vicious – included a wave of personal attacks and misogyny that left my thirteen-year-old self bruised and perplexed. My idealism, so eager to join the conversation, was met with the sharp edge of a world that was not ready to listen. But has this changed after ten years?

Today’s political discussions often turn into verbal battlegrounds, where the goal seems less to be understanding than victory. Social media, creating echo chambers and narrowing attention spans, amplifies this by rewarding outrage and oversimplification at the expense of nuance and depth. The result is extreme polarization, a weakening of democratic processes and a progressive erosion of social cohesion.

If I’ve learned anything from politics conferences, it’s that at the heart of any functioning democracy is the concept of constructive dialogue. People have diverse backgrounds, interests, and perspectives; it is not only inevitable but necessary to have different opinions. However, how we manage these differences determines whether our discourse will be productive or destructive.

Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook often amplify outrage, reducing complex issues to small pieces of information. This brevity encourages impulsive reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Users don’t just discuss politics, they also defend their beliefs, leading to a toxic environment where constructive dialogue becomes rare. As an example, we can consider how a Hindu family from Bhola was placed under house arrest due to an alleged controversial Facebook post in 2021.

A key element of constructive dialogue is the ability to manage differences of opinion. It is essential to recognize that opposing viewpoints are not inherently malicious. Rather, they come from different experiences and beliefs. Addressing these differences requires a willingness to listen and empathize rather than refute and reject. When online discussions devolve into name-calling or personal attacks, not only do they fail to advance understanding, they also reinforce divisions.

When individuals retreat into ideological silos, the potential for collaborative problem solving diminishes. Bangladesh, for example, has seen a dramatic rise in partisan hostility, with members of opposing political parties viewing each other with increasing animosity. However, we must take into account the atrocities that each party inflicted on opposition members during their mandate, which exacerbated tensions between them. This polarization is intensified by algorithms that curate content based on user preferences, thereby reinforcing existing beliefs and insulating them from dissenting viewpoints. The case of Abrar Fahad further demonstrates the intolerance of some towards opposing points of view.

The pervasive nature of social media has made it easier for individuals to demonize those with whom they disagree, often presenting opposing viewpoints as threats to their identity or values. This binary thinking is harmful to society and undermines the very principles of democracy. The complete rejection of opposing viewpoints has made it almost impossible to engage in meaningful discussions on serious topics. It is important to remember that these consequences have real consequences. The recent cases of Utsab Mandal and communal violence demonstrate this phenomenon.

Contrary to the popular belief that consensus is always desirable, disagreement is often the real catalyst for change. Some of the most profound social changes were brought about by dissidents who challenged the status quo. From civil rights movements in the United States to anticolonial movements in India and Africa, voices that diverged from mainstream thinking played a crucial role in changing the moral arc of societies. The history of Bangladesh proves this time and again.

In these tumultuous times, we must begin by building a culture of tolerance – both by tolerating opposing ideas and, more importantly, recognizing that no ideology has a monopoly on the truth. This does not mean silencing critics or not holding others accountable, but rejecting the belief that those who disagree with us are inherently evil or unworthy of respect. Tolerance is not a matter of passivity – it is a matter of restraint and empathy, of understanding that true democracy is complicated and that disagreements are inevitable, even healthy. We must also resist the temptation to simplify complex issues into black-and-white narratives that vilify the other side.

Plus, telling people to “just read more books” in the middle of an argument is effectively like throwing a self-help manual at someone who is drowning. What might work is to share your perspective without being disrespectful. Think of it like explaining something to a friend who is too stubborn to read the instructions. You don’t need to drop Dostoyevsky on them. Just be clear, concise and, above all, don’t know everything.

The importance of constructive political dialogue cannot be overstated. It is by listening, engaging respectfully, and learning to tolerate – without necessarily agreeing with – divergent viewpoints that we can protect our democratic values ​​and ensure a future where diverse voices can coexist peacefully.

Azra Humayra majors in mass communication and journalism at the University of Dhaka. Find it at: (email protected)