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?

Why did we slowly let them strip our neighborhoods of most trees?
Meeting with dead man left me pondering choices of life, death
Grow veggies in your own yard? ‘You’re heading to jail, you criminal’
Reaction to Penn State scandal shows danger of putting leaders on pedestal
Briefly: Sufjan Stevens album always evokes old feelings about my mother
Years later, Supreme Court justice apologizes to Susette Kelo, sorta
We can’t have real freedom without also allowing discrimination
Before you can rescue other folks, you have to learn to save yourself
Insane incentives create insane results as kids are paid to attend classes