Etiquette in Social Media and Text Messaging

Communication in modern times is much different from what it was in even the fairly recent past. We in the first world have essentially become beholden to technology in all matters of life. Because this has become such a deep-seated truth, it has become akin to face-to-face conversation when concerning texting and messaging of any kind. Would a decent person blatantly ignore someone who addressed them in an in-person conversation? Highly unlikely. Now that so much communication occurs from a distance and has become a part of our daily lives, we should be more sensitive to how it may affect others when we simply decide to shun their attempts at conversation. Privacy is important, but as a humanist and someone who cares about the emotions of other human beings, I feel this is worth considering in terms of our mental health and how friends should treat one another. I've decided to come up with some handy tips for how to put off a conversation that is either unwanted or we don't have time for, with some needed sidebars included.

Responding to someone when directly addressed in a comment on a social media post or a direct message (text, any kind of messenger) is easy and full of benefits.
How it’s easy:

1. It literally takes seconds.
2. It requires basically no energy.
3. It usually requires very little thought.

How it’s beneficial:

1. One engages in human, social interaction.
2. One avoids coming off as self-important.
3. One avoids upsetting the person sending the message and in turn avoid dealing with the unneeded annoyance of addressing the upset person’s concerns as to why one has decided to ignore them.

It should be noted and understood that sometimes, someone just doesn’t feel like talking or simply didn’t see the message until a much later time. But if we care about the feelings of our friends, this shouldn't excuse us from using common courtesy and practicing general social etiquette. Here are some tips for dealing with both of these situations.

Don’t feel like talking:

1. Step 1:  address the initial message (optional). Step 2: follow up with, “Hey, sorry, I’m a little busy at the moment. I’ll have to talk to you later.” If you don't have time to address the subject matter, skip directly to step 2.
2. Say you’re not necessarily busy, but you’re reading a book or watching Netflix, for example. The best thing to do in this situation? Use honesty. “Hey, what’s up. Can’t talk now, I’m in the middle of watching a show/reading a book and want to finish up. Chat later.” The person may be disappointed, but they’ll at least know you have acknowledged them and care about their attempt to contact you.
3. If it’s on social media and it’s a statement that you have nothing to add to and don’t feel like doing so, most social media sites offer a “like” option. This is just a courtesy and sends the message to the friend in question, “I have seen you’re comment and have chosen to acknowledge to you that I’ve read it. However, I have nothing of import to add.”

Didn’t see the message:

*Note: This one is tricky. Some people can become very impatient and barrage you with further messages. These people are likely dealing with some kind of insecurity or are maybe even lonely in their life. Though it’s incredibly irritating and can even seem rude, be the better person and attempt to exhibit empathy. If the person is blatantly rude, then we course have license to defend ourselves in kind and this presents case where ignoring the message may be considered appropriate. Some phones (and virtually all social media) have features where we can block certain parties from contacting us.

1. The classic, “Hey sorry, just saw this...” works perfectly in any situation.
2. Say you feel asleep or hadn’t awaken for the day. Let’s go back to an earlier tactic: use honestly. “Hey, sorry, I just woke up...” Then address them in kind. If you don’t feel like speaking further, see tips for “Don’t feel like talking.”

Let’s say this person genuinely rubs the recipient of the message the wrong way and said recipient wants nothing to do with them. Let’s get back to that “use honesty” tactic described earlier. It may seem difficult, but it may be the best course of action for the recipient to bluntly inform the messaging party that they don't want anything to do with them. “Listen, I’m not interested in speaking to you.” It may seem harsh, but it will save the recipient and the party in question lots of grief in the future. It could even thwart a much bigger issue in advance. It may be initially uncomfortable and feelings could even change down the road, but at least the person won’t be in any way curious as to why the recipient seems to always avoid them.

There are people who likely text excessively. These people are probably unaware they are being a nuisance. Again, the "use honesty" tactic can take a person very far in this scenario. Consider telling the person, "Hey, though I enjoy being your friend, I'm not really much of a texting person. I'd rather just keep text conversations to a minimum if we could. Feel free to text me if you need something, but I'm probably not going to just have lengthy conversations with you via text unless I'm really in the mood for it." The person may be disappointed that they won't be able to socialize with their friend outside of seeing one another in person much, but if the messaging party respects the recipient  as a friend, they'll listen and they'll keep the texts to a minimum.

The very little effort involved in acknowledging someone else's attempt to connect with us via conversation is a win-win for both parties. It's always worth remembering that the mere fact this person is attempting to contact us usually means they see our worth and admire it. This person likely enjoys speaking with us and our company. Not every individual is fortunate enough to have such a luxury in this often unkind world. It's important that we remember and feel grateful for having people in our lives with which to socialize.

Home of the Brave?

We refer to America as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” I’d like to believe that to be true. What exactly do we consider bravery? I think the definition is pretty broad among our people. I’ve been very interested in following the views of others regarding this situation with the attacks in Paris and the resulting shift in opinion concerning the consideration of granting a safe-haven to a small percentage Syrian refugees. I’ve also been aware of a reignited thirst for war from many of us. I see some calling for a total ban on bringing refugees into the country. I see others claiming we should open our doors and increase the number that we would let in. I hear some claim none of these refugees are women and children, but all able-bodied men of fighting age. I see some making hasty warnings with memes in serious need of citation. For example, I saw one comparing this situation to a percentage of Nazis in Germany during World War II and terrorists who practice the Islamic faith. Does this meme suggest that we should wipe out Muslims or does this meme suggest that we should bar any further influx of Muslims into our country because we should first assume that they have the intentions of a jihadist (akin to Germans being Nazis)? Either way, I can’t help but think back to that motto we’ve adopted from our National Anthem: The land of the free and the home of the brave.

I want to address civilians here, meaning non-military citizens of the United States. When calling for a full-scale invasion of Syria, Iraq, or any other place from which ISIS is operating, is it you who shows bravery, or is it you who expects others to be brave for you? Is it brave to sit at a computer and pound away at the keys to make public your desire to send off our citizens who have volunteered to protect our country to fight a battle in which you cannot or have no intention of participating? As we sit from the comfort of our heated homes with cable television and high-speed internet and an abundance of food in our pantries and refrigerators, with our vehicle (or multiple vehicles) sitting in our garages or driveways, some of us even opine that we should take a page from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and drop nuclear bombs on the Middle East in order to end this war with Islamic extremists once and for all. God is good. God has blessed us and we are the good guys. Have you even considered what the result of that would be? Have you even considered the horrors that would result from an action like this? Think of the innocent lives that will forever be gone. Think of the land that we would render inhabitable and spoil for years. This land, which some of you believe is the cradle of civilization, the setting where the stories from your most sacred, holy book took place, should be destroyed for the actions of a fringe element of a much wider culture? Of course, something should be done to assist, but do we really support such an extreme action? Thank goodness cooler heads will prevail in Washington. This would be an evil, tyrannical move and a crime against humanity on a scale never before seen. Sure, a lot of these nations are regressive in their ways of thinking. Women are treated poorly. Christians, atheists, and LGBT citizens must live secret lives or possibly die. But this isn’t the fault of the citizens. They were born into this situation. This is all they know. We were born into our situations of privilege. Good for us, but are we any better than these people because of it? Can we really efficiently transform a culture of violence and oppression with more violence and oppression? Each time we do this, we help to displace people from their homes, their families, and their way of life. We manufacture the resentment of these people. Is this really what we want? Do we really want to continue down this path?

I want to turn to the refugee situation. Which of these following actions do you find to be more in line with the notion that America is the “home of the brave?” One action would involve allowing these fellow human beings who have lost everything and are simply trying to find a place where they can keep themselves and their children safe from the constant war and strife that takes place in their home country. We would accept this action with the knowledge that a majority of these people practice the Muslim faith and there is a slight possibility that some of them could harbor bad intentions. But to the vast, vast majority, we would merely provide succor. A second action would be to generalize and assume that assisting these human beings would inevitably result in a danger to us, so in a flurry of fear-based decision making, we deny these people shelter from a living hell that we have never experienced in our fortunate place within the world. Are we humanitarians as a country or are we nationalists who care nothing for the lives of any but our own? I consider myself a humanist, so in my mind, it’s my duty to help in any way possible to fellow human beings in need. The majority of Americans are Christians. Christians are charged by the figure of Christ, who they base their very way of life upon, to care for those in need. Here are just two verses from the New Testament which support this:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” — Matthew 25:37-40

“Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.” — Romans 12:13

Consider these questions. What constitutes bravery to you? What course of action would genuinely display the most courage? Look deep inside yourself, from the depths of your own conscience and ask: what is right?