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?

In defense of the legal right to anonymous speech, political lies
Conservatives betray their own values when they mimic enemies
FRIDAY FUNNIES
Few things scare humans like the prospect of living, dying alone
Let’s try a candid conversation just for the few who want to hear
NOTEBOOK: If results confuse Paul’s aides, how competent are they?
One of life’s greatest gifts is for someone to give us full attention
Librarian wants random winners after boy ‘hogs’ reading contest