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?

Still relevant six years later: ‘We’re the Government — and You’re Not’
We’re all going to die, but what do you want to do before you die?
‘What’s the worth of one warm smile? Go and ask the dead man’
Uh, oh: For first time since ’45, U.S. job growth was zero last month
We like to think we’re complex, but personality gurus pegged me
Why can it feel strange to lose homes we haven’t seen for years?
‘Pretense of knowledge’ leads world down a dangerous path
It’s OK to volunteer for tornado cleanup, but only if you’re not a pro