Recently, one of my prior articles won an award from the Dallas Morning News and it was reprinted in the Opinions and Points section of the newspaper. This experience has been at once humbling and invigorating; writing for Wingspan had been a hobby I’d treasured for the majority of the year, but now I feel as though I’m plugged into the discourse of the times. Perhaps more people will have a vested interest in my words; perhaps my words may even help incite the change I want to see in the world.

This new platform I have been afforded has come with some interesting side effects, though. Previously, the only people who read my work were my family, friends, classmates, and teachers. These people know me, often quite personally, and a lot of them generally share my views on the topics I discuss.

Perusing through the comments on my article has made it abundantly clear to me that this camaraderie with my readers is something I’ve largely taken for granted.

Obviously, a hot topic like gun control has multiple sides and the advent of social media has made it possible for almost anybody to share their thoughts with the whole world. This is not inherently a bad thing–our government itself is based on providing citizens the opportunities to make their voices heard.

However, when opinions become lionized as the indisputable truth, unable to be debated or discussed in a civil manner, trouble starts to brew. This leads to a sensationalization of the topics at hand, and conflicts that could be resolved in a mutually beneficial manner may escalate to personal attacks and/or derogatory comments that only serve to make everyone angry. I believe the main cause of this escalation is a lack of mutual respect from both sides of the aisle.

The publicized debate about gun control, for example, can roughly be dichotomized into the youth versus the elders. Now this is a generalization and it obviously does not take into account the youth groups advocating for protection of second amendment rights or the adults who support measures for gun control.

However, the vast majority of media coverage surrounding this highly controversial debate has pitted the Parkland students against older politicians and public figures. This very obvious contrast makes for a better story and obviously differs significantly from the real debate. Unfortunately, it only helps to deepen the divide between the two sides, diminishing the chances for a civil discussion that actually results in deeper understanding of the conflict at hand; instead, the only thing that arises is a toxic, counterintuitive confirmation bias in which most people favor the side they can relate to and denounce the other.

NRA board member Ted Nugent recently addressed Parkland activists Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg as “poor, mushy-brained children” who “have no soul.” David Hogg himself starred in a video that used a quite obscene word to describe our lawmakers. This type of vernacular just encourages vilification of the opposition, leading to political gridlock, frustration, and more disrespect. A positive feedback loop.

It would do all of us well to realize that opinions can be valid even if they are not our own and those who disagree with us have their merits as well. To the students: I myself have touted the axiom “Respect must be earned,” but our actions wouldn’t be ridiculed as much if we weren’t so quick to leverage obscenities at our elders. And to the adults–do not dismiss the youth so quickly, you raised us after all.

So no, I don’t advocate for everyone joining hands around a campfire and singing Kumbaya, but a little bit of respect would go a long way.