One of my running buddies is a thoughtful chap, a fellow we affectionately nickname BFG. He’s often full of insights during our runs, offering up observations that make one think. Which is great since thinking is an excuse for not being able to talk – middle-aged cardiovascular fitness being what it is. While he may not be the most graceful sight as he jogs around the park – his lanky, slightly awkward stride earning him his nickname – his conversation more than makes up for what he lacks in fluidity.

The other day, while we were out on a six-hour run in the mountains, BFG made a comment about one of my recent articles. It was an article that had garnered significant feedback from readers – many agreed with the points I made, but a significant number disagreed, some quite vocally. BFG, it turns out, was among those who disagreed with my perspective.

As we ran along the trail, he explained his disagreement in a calm and thoughtful manner, giving well-reasoned arguments for his stance. It was exactly the type of exchange we should all aim for when engaging in meaningful conversation. BFG stuck to the topic at hand, avoided any personal jabs, and listened as much as he spoke. It was a model for how differing perspectives can be shared and debated respectfully. His approach made me think about the kind of dialogue we should be promoting in all areas of life, especially in today’s world.

The next day, as I sat at my desk and opened my email, I saw a string of comments from other readers who had also responded to my article. However, the tone of these responses was vastly different from BFG’s. The core message of many was that, because my opinion differed from their own, everything about me must be negative.

Some of the messages were even harsher: individuals declared that they would no longer support my business and were encouraging others to sever ties with me. All of this simply because my viewpoint on a particular issue didn’t align with theirs.

It struck me as not just an overreaction but as a disappointing reflection of how discourse has evolved – or, more accurately, devolved – over time. We’ve lost sight of the ability to disagree respectfully without turning the disagreement into a personal vendetta.

For context, the article in question was on the general topic of cycling. My central thesis was about New Zealand drivers. If people wanted to engage in a discussion about that, I would have welcomed the opportunity. But instead, many chose to cherry-pick one particular aspect of what I wrote, one about cycle ways, conflating it with the entire piece – and worse, turning it into a judgment on my entire character. Somehow, one opinion about driving was extended to imply that everything about me, my worldview, and even unrelated opinions was fundamentally flawed.

This isn’t the first time I’ve witnessed this phenomenon. I recall a meme from the early days of the internet that used to make the rounds. The headline said something along the lines of, “Oh my god, someone is wrong on the internet.” It was an ironic comment on how people can become so fixated on a single issue when discourse moves from face-to-face interactions to online platforms. Suddenly, we become defined by one opinion, and every aspect of our identity is magnified under the lens of that single disagreement.

The problem is, that this kind of interaction lacks nuance, it lacks humanity, and it fosters division rather than constructive conversation. It’s the opposite of the kind of civility and mutual respect we need, not just online but in all our interactions. I often wonder, is it the anonymity of the internet that causes people to forget they’re speaking to another human being? Or is it the distance – both emotional and physical – that makes it easier to launch personal attacks when, in real life, those same people would likely engage more thoughtfully?

There’s a real danger here. When we allow a single difference of opinion to define how we view another person entirely, we contribute to the erosion of civil discourse. Worse, we contribute to the breakdown of community and societal cohesion. It becomes increasingly difficult to work together or to understand one another when every conversation is tinged with the assumption that those who disagree with us are fundamentally flawed.

Don’t get me wrong – I welcome a challenging conversation. I believe in the importance of debate, in the exchange of ideas, and in the healthy clash of perspectives. I’ve never shied away from defending my viewpoint or listening to someone else’s. But what I don’t believe in is the idea that a disagreement over one issue somehow defines my entire character – or anyone else’s, for that matter.

We need to reclaim the ability to disagree civilly. We must learn how to separate a person’s opinion on one subject from their worth as an individual. Disagreement is a vital part of progress. However, it must be done with respect and an understanding that differing perspectives do not make someone an enemy. It’s time we moved away from the tendency to vilify one another based on singular issues and, instead, focus on building more constructive conversations, just as BFG and I did that day on the trail.

So, here’s my plea: let’s bring back civility. Let’s return to a place where disagreement doesn’t mean disengagement and where respect for others is not contingent upon complete agreement. Because at the end of the day, the world is full of different perspectives, and that’s exactly what makes it worth listening to.

Ben Kepes

Ben Kepes is a technology evangelist, an investor, a commentator and a business adviser. Ben covers the convergence of technology, mobile, ubiquity and agility, all enabled by the Cloud. His areas of interest extend to enterprise software, software integration, financial/accounting software, platforms and infrastructure as well as articulating technology simply for everyday users.

2 Comments
  • Bruce M Millner |

    This might be a case of “moral hypocrisy”, the idea of one holding others to a different set of standards one holds oneself to.

  • Completely agree. I wonder how we can help remind people about what’s OK and what’s not with feedback? Sometimes a small reminder at the time of typing can help. Definitely a complex issue.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.