Deer In Headlines II
By Gery Deer
Gossip. It’s an insidious phenomenon that always hurts people. Usually, gossip is inaccurate and degrades even more as it travels from person to person. Gossip is a destructive game of telephone that usually ends in the victim’s humiliation.
Gossip begins with someone sharing something confidential, saying, “Hey, just between you and me…” and so on. But it’s doubtful the information will remain a secret. The story inevitably spreads like air escaping a leaky tire.
Although there is debate about whether gossip is predominantly negative, nothing good comes from it. One study even suggests that gossipers tend to have a “darker” personality, uncaring about the social consequences of their behavior. Another offers the theory that we’re motivated by a need to bond with others in our social circles, keep ourselves entertained, vent emotions, and establish social status.
Low self-esteem seems to be a common theme among gossipers. They validate themselves by spreading news of others’ misfortunes and by sharing negative stories about people, reinforcing their imaginary superiority.
All that sounds great academically. But, personally, I think people are just mean sometimes. They want to feel superior, so they start rumors and gossip to gain an upper hand—even if it’s all in imaginary. Ignorance probably plays a role, too. Those who spread gossip often believe the person at the story’s heart will never find out, so no harm done, right? Wrong. Trust me, they always find out.
In the past, gossip proliferated over the backyard fence or around the water cooler at work. However, with the advent of social media, gossip has taken on a new level, broadcasting misinformation to countless recipients at the speed of light. Clickbait is a perfect example of modern gossip-mongering, complete with a compelling story, video, and photos.
At this point, it’s probably important to clarify how I distinguish between gossip and rumor. Official definitions explain gossip as the spread of information that’s essentially true but likely unkind or hurtful. A rumor, on the other hand, is false information passed around without confirmation or conscience. However, I’m not convinced this distinction is always evident in practice. In my opinion, there’s very little difference between gossip and rumor, regardless of what old Mr. Webster says.
Regardless of your definition, one of the most important things to remember is how gossip affects the victim and how that affects the gossiper. In this context, the word “victim” refers to the person who is the subject or target of gossip. Since most of that information is false or intended to harm someone, that person is indisputably a victim. Although spreading gossip is not criminal, when those actions cause harm, there should be more severe consequences.
Victims of gossip can suffer devastating and long-lasting effects. I remember when I was in fifth grade, one of the bullies in my class made up a story about me that spread through our rural school like a bad case of Chicken Pox.
It was a painfully frustrating time for me. I already had to deal with being a 10-year-old adjusting to a strange new school. Simultaneously, however, I had to get good grades and spend every other waking minute defending myself against ridiculous lies.
Sometimes, gossip severely damages someone’s reputation or their livelihood. In such cases, it could be considered slander, and the harmed person may have a right to pursue legal action. The person who started the false information may be liable and must pay financial or other restitution.
We can’t control what others say about us, to whom, when, or how. At a time when misinformation and fake news are the norm, all we can do is abstain from its distribution. Think about it. Would you want someone gossiping about you, your business, coworkers, or your family?. Finally, remember that the best gossip is the kind you keep to yourself. And, if you hear gossip or the rumor mill is churning out something about someone close to you, do what you can to help put an end to it. I’ll close with a quote from the great Hee Haw Honeys song: “We’re not ones to go around repeating gossip. So, you’d better be sure to listen close the first time.”
The Jamestown Comet 
Civil Discourse, communication, Conversation, Critical Thinking, debate, Deer In Headlines, Family Relationships, Gery Deer, Human Nature, opinion, Political Polarization, politics, Social Commentary, Understanding
Debate is not conversation
In Education, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Uncategorized on June 14, 2026 at 9:08 amDeer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
I have family members I can’t talk politics with. That’s not because they’re bad people, ignorant people, or people I don’t care about. They’re some of the smartest, hardest-working, most generous people I know. We’d help each other move furniture, fix a flat tire, or get through a family crisis without hesitation. But the moment politics enters the conversation, everything changes.
What makes it frustrating is that I’m usually not trying to change anyone’s mind. As a journalist, I’ve spent much of my career talking with people whose backgrounds, values, and beliefs differ from my own. I’ve interviewed politicians, activists, business owners, lobbyists, farmers, teachers, veterans, and everyday citizens from every imaginable perspective. My job was never to win an argument. It was to understand why people believed what they believed.
Unfortunately, that’s not always what happens around the dinner table anymore. Some people have become so hard-wired into their political identities that every discussion feels like a loyalty test. Questioning a policy suddenly becomes an attack on the tribe – or cult, depending on how you see it. Asking for clarification becomes immediate proof that you’re uninformed. Offering a different perspective becomes evidence that you’ve been misled. The conversation stops being about ideas and starts becoming about defending a team.
That’s the difference between a conversation and a debate. A conversation is an exploration. The goal is understanding. A debate is a competition. The goal is victory. Both have value in the right setting, but problems arise when people think they’re having one while participating in the other.
I’ve watched it happen countless times. Someone mentions a news story. Another person responds with an opinion. A third person offers a different interpretation. At first, everyone is simply exchanging thoughts. Then someone decides that understanding isn’t enough. Someone begins trying to prove another person wrong. The shift is subtle but unmistakable.
Questions disappear. Statements become sharper. Opinions are tossed in as facts, lobbed like verbal hand grenades. Listening becomes, well, nonexistent. Instead of learning something, people prepare rebuttals. Rather than consider another perspective, they look for weaknesses to exploit. The discussion has transformed from a conversation into a debate.
If no one recognizes what’s happening, the debate quickly deteriorates into an argument. That’s when voices rise, and interruptions begin. People assign motives rather than address ideas. You’ve probably heard the phrases before. “You only think that because…” or “You’re just saying that because…” Once those words enter the discussion, the original topic has pretty much vanished. The focus becomes defending pride, identity, and ego.
The irony is that arguments rarely – more like never – change minds but usually accomplish the opposite. The harder people push, the more firmly others cling to their existing beliefs. Nobody wants to feel cornered, embarrassed, or dismissed. Even when valid points are being made, they’re lost beneath the emotional weight of the conflict.
Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had ended with complete disagreement. Nobody switched sides. Nobody waved a white flag. Nobody declared victory. Yet both people walked away with a better understanding of how the other saw the world. That’s not failure. That’s success.
Understanding doesn’t require agreement. It doesn’t require compromise on deeply held principles. It simply requires that we recognize that intelligent people can reach different conclusions based on their experience. When we approach disagreement with curiosity instead of combativeness, we create opportunities to learn something new.
Communities depend on that ability. Families depend on it even more. If every disagreement becomes a contest, relationships eventually become casualties. People stop talking. Gatherings become tense. Entire subjects become off-limits because nobody trusts anyone else to listen.
The older I get, the less interested I am in winning debates. Winning is temporary. The satisfaction lasts about as long as the next disagreement. Understanding, however, has lasting value. It strengthens relationships, broadens perspectives, and creates opportunities for cooperation even when agreement remains impossible.
Disagreement is healthy. But what we need are fewer debates disguised as conversations. One builds bridges while the other draws battle lines. In the end, conversations create the possibility of resolution because people are working toward understanding. Debates create division because people are working toward victory. That’s a difference worth remembering.