It’s not because we don’t have differences. It’s because, on a human level, something just doesn’t add up.
We see the same things around us: potholes, constant tension everywhere, accidents. We live with the same everyday experiences, day after day. And yet, we end up at each other’s throats.
The “us versus them” logic is a bit like the Manchester City vs Manchester United rivalry: most people can’t even clearly explain why the other side is supposed to be hated — the reflex just kicks in. And when that reflex is deliberately fuelled, real hostility eventually follows.
I’ve noticed that whenever I step into a political debate, the same pattern repeats itself: people shut down, default to talking points, and fall back on pre-packaged lines. What’s happening isn’t dialogue — it’s identity defence.
But when we stay on a human level — talking about life situations, exhaustion, fears, everyday experiences — the resistance disappears. There are no camps there. Just people.
That’s why I no longer decide who I can connect with based on political positions, but on the kind of space that forms between us. If it turns into mockery, trench-digging and enemy-making, I step away. If there’s respect, humour and human presence, I stay — even if we see things differently.
⸻
What increasingly bothers me is the way the media operates.
Today, almost anything can be said about anyone. At worst, there’s a fine or a correction later on. But the mental damage caused along the way seems to matter to no one.
Public smear campaigns don’t just affect the individual. They affect families, children, entire environments. And each of us would need a different amount of time to recover from something like that on a human level.
How many people would have given up the money from a fine if it meant the smear itself had never been published?
It should also be a warning sign that media on “both sides” are now often talking about such completely different things that it feels like two separate realities exist. Not just different interpretations — but increasingly, not even the same topics.
So it’s worth asking the question: what purpose do these two realities serve?
Perhaps to deepen the trenches further. To prevent perspectives from ever meeting. To leave us with parallel monologues instead of a shared language.
Highly effective. And at the same time, remarkably simple. And disturbingly transparent.
Isn’t the role of the media supposed to be — as a fourth branch of power — to point out wrongdoing, to ask questions, and to hold those in power to account?
⸻
What bothers me isn’t disagreement. It’s that, along the way, the human element disappears.
And the deeper the trenches get, the less chance there is that we’ll hear each other at all.
Maybe the real question isn’t who’s right. But how we can talk about these things without losing each other in the process. ❤️