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?

Turn off the Outrage Machine; focus on things you can control
Reaction to Penn State scandal shows danger of putting leaders on pedestal
Only through death of empires can something new take their places
Donald Trump is an evil man, but his political enemies are evil, too
I want the culture to value smart women more than ‘hot’ women
Top secret weapon for homeland security: the ‘Sno-Cone’ machine
I fear nobody will come with me as I start down a difficult path
Love & Hope — Episode 8:
Global warming or a new ice age? Anyone who claims to know is lying