I found myself involved in a couple of online debates Monday that I wasn’t happy about. In both cases, someone who disagrees with me attacked me personally about that disagreement. In both cases, I felt attacked personally and responded more harshly than I meant to. I avoid those kinds of arguments these days, so they both upset me — partly at the other people, but partly at myself.
Both of the debates were about military action around the world. The specifics don’t matter, but in both cases, the other person was attacking the idea that the United States has behaved inappropriately with some military actions around the world in the last decade or so. (In one of the cases, the woman called those of us who opposed her position “dissenters,” as though that was a vile thing to be.) The truth is that arguments such as these don’t end up being about the subjects themselves. The arguments end up very personal. They end up between two people (or more) who have very different views of the world — and it’s about each trying to convince the other than his model of reality is the correct one.
How in the world can we deal with humans living together when we see the world in so many different ways? And does it have to be this way?

‘Cash for clunkers’ was an even bigger clunker than we first realized
Eviction moratorium is pure theft; it’s a sign of creeping socialism
Something in us usually wants to believe next year will be different
It’s a very old cliche, but it’s true: Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt
Public discourse is distorted by constant outrage over anecdotes
It’s when we create art — and create a better world — that we’re most like our Creator
Here’s a hot news flash: State ‘industrial policy’ still doesn’t work
Looking for truth in random noise? Or is there meaning for me in this?
Taking responsibility for mistakes is foreign concept in many lawsuits