Is it possible to have constructive conversations with people with whom you disagree these days? That’s a question I’ve been wrestling with for a while now. It’s also a question many have asked me. For over a decade, I’ve tried to create space for these kinds of conversations on Tuesday nights at a local bar. Is it possible? Absolutely! But that declarative statement requires nuance and further explanation.

Let me begin with a story.

After Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in November 2024, I was disheartened. In his election, I anticipated many of the things that are beginning to come to pass: a rise in political violence, violence against immigrants, and moves toward the abrogation of free speech. I see many parallels between the United States today and the 1920s. As in that period with the rise of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there is a growing hunger for authoritarian leadership—not just here, but abroad. One of my good friends reached out to me via private message, noted that we clearly disagreed about the election, and suggested we grab a coffee.

After an hour or so of chatting, we still did not agree on our assessment of the election. However, I think we both understood where the other was coming from. I respected his position, and he respected mine. We both wanted what was best for our families and our country. We simply had very different understandings of how to get there.

On that same post, people from across the political spectrum commented, and many of the responses got nasty. The name-calling and snark were awful. The way people treated one another in the comment section was very different from how these folks act in “real life.” I don’t think anyone who engaged in that thread walked away understanding anything about the “other.” They spoke past one another and sought out “gotcha” moments.

Why the two different kinds of engagement? Context.

Context matters. Context matters in studying texts and also in having conversations.

When we sit behind screens at keyboards, there is “nobody” on the other side. Those who engage with us in the digital realm become disembodied avatars, not real people created in the image of God. As a result, we react to them as though they’re less than human. Our words betray any sense that we comprehend them as flesh-and-blood people to love. They become nothing more than 0s and 1s to be beaten and subdued.

Sitting with my friend over a cup of coffee, I looked into the eyes of a man deeply concerned for his children and grandchild. His body language communicated worry and anxiety. There were moments when his voice cracked as he spoke of his concerns. This was a man who cared deeply for those in his life and was looking for a way to protect and care for them. Looking into his eyes, I could empathize; I felt deep compassion and sympathy. I think he was able to do the same with me. This is an experience we cannot have through the digital divide.

The two different contexts created two very different kinds of engagement.

It is absolutely possible to disagree agreeably, but we need to do it in the proper context. I’m convinced that social media comment sections, text messages, or other forms of digital communication are not the places for these conversations. We need to have them in person.

Related to this is something else I’ve been thinking about regarding social media. Each of us who has a social media account has the ability to respond immediately to anything and everything we see. Before social media, we might read something in the newspaper or see something on the evening news. To respond would require a letter to the editor. Or perhaps we’d try to publish an article in a journal or write a book. Regardless of the mode of response, it wasn’t immediate; it required effort and time.

We no longer have to wait.

I scroll and click and comment. Immediately.

When we respond with immediacy, we short-circuit our ability to think clearly. Our responses are rooted in the heat of the moment, without time for real reflection. When this happens, we are often less kind, see less nuance, and treat the conversation as a competition to be won.

In light of this, I’m trying hard to embrace a personal twenty-four-hour rule. When I see a post that triggers an emotional reaction, I try to wait at least twenty-four hours before responding. Nine times out of ten, I never respond. Why? Because it turns out the post doesn’t require a response on social media. If I keep thinking about it, I try to engage the person in real life. If that’s not possible, I reach out via private message and try to talk with them that way. A slower, more deliberate response has helped me discern what is needed in the things I encounter in my social feed.

In conclusion, yes, it’s possible to disagree well. But the context and medium matter. I encourage all of us to seek more in-person and fewer online conversations. And if you’re in the Ypsilanti area, join me on Tuesday nights at 8 p.m. at the historic Tap Room in downtown Ypsilanti for a weekly in-person conversation about things that matter.