One of my favorite parts about being a columnist with Technician is getting to see all of the comments from students, faculty and alumni. With the largest majority of commenters being either graduate NC State students or alumni, I always love to hear what they think of my opinions and hear their sides of the argument. However, as with all great things on social media, there are always a handful of downright rude comments that add no value to conversation.

These comments, often made by alumni, don’t disagree or try to talk about points made in my article, but rather call me the overused “snowflake” or “liberal” and attack me rather than my argument. The astounding immaturity that I see within these comments leads me to argue that some — not all — of our alumni network are behaving rudely within our Technician Facebook posts, and there needs to be a larger focus on bringing back politeness and rationality into the comments section.

First, I am not saying that I do not want comments from alumni and other NC State affiliates. I say this both for the sake of my argument, and also so that I do not have to experience comments on this column saying that I’m a “snowflake afraid of confrontation.” I apologize to those who are so eager to comment derogatory attacks, but I’d rather see constructive responses and arguments.

Next, social media discourse allows diverse perspectives about complex issues to be shared, and that’s all. A study from Penn State University found that Twitter is not an ideal public sphere, or a place where individuals can congregate freely to discuss societal problems due to selective exposure. Rather, it does allow the equality for people of all classes to forum together. Additionally, scientific reports have supported the idea that people are unlikely to change opinions when confronted with opposing evidence.

With this in mind, and the idea that social media platforms are a place for contradicting opinions to be shared but not necessarily debated, comments should be written with the intent to inform others of one’s own views and not with the expectation to completely destroy another’s argument or change their mind. One of the best comments I ever received was on my article OPINION: In cold blood […], where an HIV researcher provided a five-paragraph response explaining the scientific rationale in deeper detail than what’s available online.

All of the factual and rational reasons to engage in mature political discourse aside, it is simply not in the Wolfpack way to be so disrespectful. We are better than attacking and criticizing our own student body. Moreover, the ad hominem attack is ineffective because it not only shows that the comment writer does not have enough knowledge to form a coherent rebuttal, but also is incredibly rude and exemplifies the immaturity of the alum who writes it.

I do not want comments from alumni to stop; if anything, I want more comments, but I want them to be mature responses to our opinion pieces that contribute additional information to either support or oppose the argument and not the person. I am calling for our alumni to act like 22+, mature adults rather than like 12-year-olds that just got on social media.