Editorial: We Have Forgotten How to Disagree By Jon Fetherston I don’t agree with you. I don’t see it that way. Interesting argument, but no. You haven’t changed my mind. That should be an entirely unremarkable conversation. It doesn’t mean I hate you. It doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad person. And it certainly doesn’t mean I want you silenced, humiliated or driven from the public square. It simply means we disagree. Somehow, we have made that complicated. Spend enough time covering politics, protests and public meetings in Maine and you see how quickly disagreement can become personal. People who know almost nothing about one another can decide, based on a political position, a bumper sticker or a sign at a protest, that the person standing across from them is not merely wrong but an enemy. When did we become so bad at disagreeing? We can blame social media. We can blame politicians. We can blame cable news and a culture that increasingly rewards outrage. Maybe all of them deserve some of the blame. But ultimately, each of us is responsible for how we treat the person standing in front of us. Civility isn't proven by how respectfully we treat people who agree with us. It is proven by how we treat the person whose politics, opinions and worldview we may find profoundly wrong. And that standard has to apply when the person being shouted down is someone I disagree with, too. Otherwise, it isn't a principle. It's convenience. Civility does not mean surrender. Respect does not mean agreement. And listening to someone does not require accepting what they believe. There is nothing wrong with arguing passionately. Challenge bad ideas. Question politicians. Protest government policies. Write letters. Hold signs. Attend meetings. Ask uncomfortable questions. Tell me I'm wrong. Better yet, show me. Bring facts. Bring evidence. Challenge my assumptions. Make an argument I haven't considered. Try to get me to see it your way. Maybe you'll change my mind. Maybe I'll change yours. Maybe neither of us will move an inch. That's OK. What isn't OK is deciding that because persuasion failed, intimidation is now acceptable. Disagreement does not justify threats. It doesn't justify harassment. It doesn't justify destroying someone's property. And failing to win an argument certainly doesn't justify trying to frighten someone into silence. Those aren't tools of persuasion. They're evidence that persuasion has been abandoned. Being civil also doesn't require pretending every argument is equally persuasive or every action equally defensible. Some ideas deserve fierce criticism. Some conduct deserves unequivocal condemnation. We can do those things without surrendering our humanity. That may be what we're losing most. I have talked with plenty of people at political events whose views are dramatically different from mine. Sometimes those conversations are uncomfortable. Sometimes they're heated. But something interesting happens when two people actually talk instead of shouting. The caricature starts disappearing. The liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat or independent standing across from you becomes a person again. Maybe you still disagree about immigration, abortion, guns, taxes, Donald Trump or almost everything else. Keep talking long enough and you might discover you both worry about your kids. You both think groceries cost too much. You both love Maine. And you both probably start complaining about winter sometime around February. You might even laugh. None of that requires either person to surrender a single belief. We have confused respecting someone with agreeing with them. They are not the same thing. A free society doesn't depend upon agreement. It depends upon our ability to live together despite disagreement. We debate. We protest. We campaign. We write. We speak. We vote. Then comes the part we don't talk about nearly enough. We have to live together afterward. The election ends. The protest signs come down. The public meeting adjourns. And the person you were arguing with is still your neighbor. Maybe that's where rebuilding civil discourse begins — not in Washington, Augusta or with politicians promising to lower the temperature. Maybe it begins with us. Listen before assuming. Ask before accusing. Challenge the argument instead of attacking the person. And occasionally be willing to say three words that seem increasingly difficult: I was wrong. We aren't going to agree on everything. We shouldn't. But disagreement doesn't require hatred, and conviction doesn't require cruelty. So tell me why I'm wrong. I'll listen. I'll probably argue back. And when we're finished, maybe neither of us will have changed our minds. That's fine. Let's shake hands, agree to disagree and go grab a beer. Because tomorrow, we'll still be neighbors. @TheMaineWire