There’s a quote often attributed to Voltaire – though he probably didn’t actually say it – that goes something like:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Less highbrow but equally apt, as I doomscroll on social media (a habit I’m trying to keep a damper on), I often think of a Salt-N-Pepa song I was fond of back in my ‘90s high school days. None of Your Business confidently states: opinions are like a**holes and everybody’s got one. No cliché feels truer than this when I’m scrolling through social media posts about politics and current affairs.
Those two very different quotes collide in my busy brain and lead me to the question that inspired this post: have we lost the ability to sit with disagreement without immediately assuming bad faith? Without making snap judgements about the motivations, kindness, or intelligence of the people we disagree with? Without dismissing them and creating a canyon between us that feels impossible to bridge?
Opinions today feel harder, sharper, and more entrenched than they used to. We don’t just disagree; we sort each other. We decide who is ignorant, who is dangerous, who is beyond the pale. And once someone has been put in a category, listening often stops. For me, it’s hard to see how we make progress on any of the big challenges we face in society if we can’t find ways to listen to one another and try, at least, to understand where others are coming from. In a society that aims to be equal and fair, we have to learn how to tolerate dissent and competing interests, and how to balance them in ways that still respect the humanity of everyone involved.
Some of my very best friends are people I didn’t like at first, or didn’t understand, or didn’t agree with. I’m thinking of two people in particular who, if they read this, will probably know who they are. Different social groups and different points in my life, but in both cases, we were thrown together by mutual friends. We found each other grating for various reasons, including having quite different lived experiences and interests.
Over time, and after many snarky comments and long debates in the pub, those relationships shifted. Not just into friendship, but into decades-long, forever friendships. And the reasons are fairly simple.
First, we got to know each other properly. We came to understand where those clashes of personality and outlook were coming from, and our differences became something interesting rather than irritating.
Second, however heated the debates became, we never (or at least, rarely) let them turn into disrespect. We knew we’d keep seeing each other through our mutual friends, and rather than letting disagreement create distance, we learned to enjoy the exchange without questioning each other’s character.
Third, we weren’t inflexible in our views. We were open to being convinced to change our minds, which I believe is what makes any debate worth having.
I’m interested in what we can learn from that dynamic. Because at the end of the day, we’re all in the same world together, much like my former frenemies and I were in the same social circles. Disagreement didn’t disappear, but it didn’t have to break the relationship either.
I studied English literature at university, then went on to do an MA and a PhD in it. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked what the point of that is. Fiction is just made-up stories, after all. But fiction was what pulled me away from the chemistry degree I originally signed up for.
Science is one way of discovering truths about the world, but so are the humanities – literature, history, philosophy, art. Humans made these things, and paying attention to them gives us insight into how people think, fear, hope, justify, and care. Those insights matter in how we live our lives, make decisions, form beliefs, and treat other people.
No single novel, painting, or piece of music will speak to everyone. It doesn’t need to. Taken together, the humanities form a kind of patchwork – different lives, contexts, fears, hopes, and blind spots. You don’t have to agree with what a story says to learn something from it. You don’t have to like a piece of art to appreciate where it comes from. And everyone knows that history holds lessons for the future.
The same is true of the media many of us might consume more often now: perhaps Netflix series and TikTok, rather than dusty paperbacks and symphonies. Think about why you like the media you like. Sometimes it’s because they show you a world you don’t know much about. Sometimes it’s because they reflect something you recognise and make you feel less alone. Sometimes they let you think through questions you don’t yet have answers to.
In that sense, opinions are stories too.
They’re rarely formed in a vacuum. They’re shaped by upbringing, community, fear, belonging, perceived threat, lived experience, and by what feels normal in the environments we move through. When we reduce someone’s opinion to a single label, we lose sight of that complexity.
That doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid, or that harm should be ignored. There is a real difference between free expression and speech that actively causes harm, and I want to come back to that distinction properly another time.
But I do think we’re often too quick to assume that disagreement equals malice, and that assumption makes it harder to move forward.
Social media plays a role in this, obviously. It rewards certainty, speed, and outrage. But I don’t think it’s helpful to demonise it entirely. These platforms also allow us to encounter people we’d never otherwise meet, and perspectives we might not stumble across in our offline lives. They can shrink us into echo chambers, or stretch us, depending on how we use them.
What I’m interested in exploring here is how we might meet others where they are, without surrendering our values or pretending differences don’t matter. How we hold onto the things that are remarkably universal – the need for dignity, safety, belonging, and meaning – even when we have very different ideas about how to get there.
This isn’t about winning arguments. It’s about understanding how opinions are formed, why they harden, and what it might take to soften them again, including our own. This is one of the foundational concepts I’m hoping to take forward in the relaunched blog.


