Disagreement Is Not a Licence for Cruelty

I have yet to see anyone change their mind because somebody called them an idiot.

But judging by social media, we are absolutely committed to testing the theory. 🤣

I've been thinking a lot recently about how we disagree with each other. Not what we disagree about. That's a different conversation. I'm interested in what happens to us when we decide somebody is wrong.

Because somewhere along the way, “I think you're wrong” seems to have become “I think you're a terrible human being.”

And that's quite a leap.

We can hear one opinion from someone we've never met and apparently know everything about them. Their intelligence. Their morals. Their upbringing. Sometimes even what is wrong with their entire community.

I'm not pretending all opinions are harmless. They aren't.

Some things should make us angry. Racism should be challenged. Bullying should be challenged. Cruelty should be challenged. There are times when saying nothing isn't kindness at all.

But I think we've started confusing understanding someone with agreeing with them.

They're not the same thing.

I can try to understand why you believe something and still think you're completely wrong. I can recognise what might have shaped your thinking without accepting where that thinking has taken you.

Actually, I think we should try to understand.

Otherwise, what exactly are we challenging? A person we've created in our own head?

This becomes even more important when we start talking about groups of people.

One person does something terrible and suddenly their religion is on trial. A government does something appalling and ordinary people who happen to share its nationality are expected to answer for it. Someone commits an atrocity and millions of people who have never met them somehow inherit responsibility.

We know how ridiculous collective blame is when we're on the receiving end of it.

We seem to struggle a little more when we're handing it out.

And I don't think having the morally better argument gives us permission to behave badly either.

That's the bit we don't talk about enough.

You can be right about the issue and wrong in the way you treat another human being.

A good cause doesn't magically make cruelty good.

I sometimes wonder what we're actually trying to achieve in these conversations.

Do we want somebody to reconsider what they believe? Do we want behaviour to change? Do we want people who have been hurt to know we're standing with them?

Or do we just want to win?

Because if the aim is to change someone's mind, humiliating them in front of an audience is probably not the master strategy we think it is.

Although, admittedly, it can make for a spectacular comments section. 🤣

And yes, there are people who aren't interested in conversation. There are people who simply want to provoke, and I don't believe anybody is entitled to unlimited access to our time or energy.

But where there is room for conversation, I don't want us to lose our curiosity.

I don't want kindness to become something we reserve for people who already think like us.

And I especially don't want us to become comfortable with other people's suffering simply because we've decided they're on the wrong “side”.

We don't have to agree.

Sometimes we shouldn't agree.

But surely we can disagree without needing to strip somebody of their humanity first.

Perhaps that's the real test of our values.

Not how beautifully we practise them amongst people who already share them.

But whether we can still recognise another human being when they don't.

Disagreement is inevitable. Cruelty isn't.