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?

Your motivations tell me more about you than your actions do
Why do people who say they love each other cause mutual harm?
Years later, my heart still fears hearing, ‘Who moved my belt?!’
Trump apologists hope you don’t even know about the golden calf
In winner-take-all systems, swing voters matter only at election time
Telling others how to escape is easier than setting myself free
Flawed bricks can build our lives, because perfection never arrives
Cat’s ordeal reminds me that bad things happen right under my nose
Documents force me to rethink some old beliefs about my father