So. Much. Division. Let's talk about how to change that. Re-engage as neighbors, friends, co-workers and family. Let's set out to change the world. Strike that. Change A World. One person at a time, make someone's life a little better and then do it again tomorrow and the day after that, through kindness. Kindness is a Super-Power that each of us has within us. It is so powerful it has the potential to change not only your life but those around you, too. Let's talk about kindness.
We’re surrounded by disagreement, but what’s unsettling is how quickly it turns personal. A different opinion used to be just that, a different opinion. Now it often becomes a verdict: stupid, ignorant, selfish, evil. I’m wrestling with a question that sits under so many tense conversations at home, at work, and online: are we losing the ability to talk to people we disagree with, and what happens to kindness when we do?
I unpack the difference between challenging an idea and attacking a person, and why that line matters if we care about healthy relationships and civil discourse. We look at how social media changes conflict by removing faces, voices, and context, making it easier to treat people like labels instead of humans. I also draw a firm boundary around what kindness is not: it isn’t pretending everything is fine, it isn’t agreeing with everyone, and it isn’t surrendering your principles. Kindness can include saying no, setting boundaries, confronting harm, and walking away when needed.
The thread that ties it together is rehumanizing. Imagine you had to know three things about someone before you argued: who they love, what they’ve been through, and what they’re afraid of. Would you still disagree? Probably. But you might disagree differently. If you’re craving better communication skills, more empathy, and a way to disagree respectfully without dehumanizing each other, this one is for you.
If it resonates, subscribe, share it with someone you care about, and leave a review so more people can find the show.
This podcast is a proud member of the Mayday Media Network — your go-to hub for podcast creators. Whether you’re just starting a podcast and need professional production support, or you already host a show and want to join a collaborative, supportive podcast network, visit maydaymedianetwork.com
You can support the show in a few different ways—by grabbing something from our merch store, picking up a copy of my book, or joining us on Buy Me a Coffee. Every bit of support helps keep the podcast going and also helps us give back to nonprofits doing good in the world.
“Intro music: ‘Human First’ by Mike Baker – YouTube Music: https://youtu.be/wRXqkYVarGA | Podcast: Still Here, Still Trying | Website: www.mikebakerhq.com
This is the Kindness Matters podcast. A space for stories that inspire, talent, and bring us a little closer together. If you've been looking for a reminder of the good in people, you're in the right place. Because kindness matters, and so do you. It's kindness! We are There's something I've been thinking about lately, um, and I'm not sure I have an answer for it. Maybe you don't either. But it's worth asking. Are we losing the ability to talk to people that we disagree with? Not argue with them, not beat them, not prove them wrong, actually talk to them. Because there's a difference, obviously. And I'm not talking about politics. Not yet, anyway. I'm talking about the disagreements that happen every single day. The little ones. The ones that shouldn't matter as much as they sometimes do. Do you s or someone you know have family dinners still? Somebody says something around the dinner table that you completely disagree with. And maybe you're at work and a coworker has an opinion about how something should be done. Maybe your neighbor has a completely different idea about what should happen on your street. Maybe a friend recommends a movie you absolutely hated. Okay, maybe that last one isn't quite as serious, but you get the idea. We disagree with people. We always have. And disagreement isn't new, but something about the way we handle disagreement seems to have changed within the last decade or so. Sometimes the disagreement itself isn't enough. Lately, we seem to feel the need to explain why the other person is wrong. And increasingly, we don't stop there. We question their intelligence, we question their character, their motives, their morality, their humanity. Someone doesn't simply have a different opinion, they're stupid, ignorant, selfish, they're brainwashed, they're evil. Once we decide that about somebody, well why would we bother listening to them? And that's the question I want to explore today. Not who's right, not who's wrong, but what happens to kindness when we encounter someone who sees the world differently than we do? Can we disagree with someone and still respect them? Can we think somebody is completely wrong without immediately deciding that they're a bad person? And maybe the hardest question of all, is kindness possible without agreement? I'm Mike Rathbun, and this is the Kindness Matters Podcast. Let's start with something really simple. Disagreement is normal. It's supposed to happen. Two people can look at the same situation and come away with completely different conclusions. And that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is stupid. It doesn't mean that one of them is malicious. It certainly doesn't mean that one of them isn't listening. Sometimes they just see it differently. Think about that family dinner. Somebody says, I think we should do it this way. And you think, absolutely not. Maybe it's something as simple as where you're going on vacation. One person wants the beach, another wants the mountains, somebody else wants to stay home because they don't want to spend the money. There are three different opinions sitting around the same table. And nobody has to be evil, nobody has to be stupid. Nobody has to be a bad person. They just disagree. And eventually, somebody usually says, fine, let's vote. Because we understand that disagreement is part of being human. But somewhere along the way, we've started treating disagreement itself as evidence that there is something wrong with the other person. And that's where things get interesting, for lack of a better term. Because there is a big difference between saying, I disagree with you, and saying, I can't believe someone like you would believe that. The first statement is about an idea. The second is about a person. And that distinction matters.
Part two, when the person becomes the problem. Here's something I've noticed. When we're having a disagreement, we often become very good at explaining our own position. We know why we believe what we believe. We know the experiences that shape that belief. We know the people who influenced us, the information we've seen, the things that matter to us. But when somebody else reaches a different conclusion, we sometimes don't give them the same generosity. We don't think, that's interesting. I wonder what experience has brought them there. Instead, we think, how could anybody possibly believe that? And that question sounds innocent, right? But sometimes it's not. Because hidden inside it is another question. What's wrong with you? And once the conversation becomes about what it's wrong with the other person, we're no longer trying to understand. We're trying to categorize. We want to put them somewhere, smart or stupid, good or bad, us or them. And once we put somebody in the them category, it becomes remarkably easy to stop listening.
Part three, social media didn't invent this. Now, obviously, social media didn't invent disagreement. I mean, human beings have been arguing since the beginning of well, human beings. But social media has changed the environment in which disagreement happens. Online, we're often not talking to one person, we're talking to an audience. And that changes things. Because when you're sitting across a table from somebody, you can see their face, you can hear their voice. You can notice when you've hurt them, you can see the hesitation before they answer. You can recognize that there's an actual human being sitting there. Online, they're a profile picture, a username, a comment, a stranger. And it's much easier to be cruel to a symbol than it is to be cruel to a person. And that's something worth exploring. Because one of the reasons disagreements have become so difficult is that we're increasingly having disagreements without experiencing the humanity of the person we're disagreeing with. Before the internet, or at least before social media, we can disagree with someone, go our separate ways, and meet again the next day and still be friends. We could disagree with a neighbor, a coworker, a family member, because we knew them and the argument, if there was one, was face to face. These days that's mostly not the case. We don't see the person. We see the position, we don't hear their story, we see their statement. And then we respond to the statement, sometimes harshly, sometimes viciously, and sometimes we don't even realize that the person on the other side of the screen is sitting at home. They probably have a family, a spouse, children. They've had disappointments, they've experienced loss, they've been hurt, they've been scared, they've been hopeful, they've been wrong. Just like we have.
Then it's different, isn't it? And I don't want to be I don't want to pretend otherwise. Kindness doesn't mean pretending that everything is fine. It doesn't mean agreeing with everyone. It certainly doesn't mean surrendering your principles. It doesn't mean saying, well, we just have different opinions. Because sometimes an issue really does matter. Sometimes someone's actions really do cause harm. Sometimes we absolutely should speak up. Kindness isn't silence. And respect isn't surrender. I think that's the important distinction. Because sometimes people hear the word kindness and think we're talking about being agreeable. We're not. You can be kind and still say no. You can be kind and still disagree. You can be kind and set boundaries for yourself. You can be kind and say, I think you're wrong. The challenge is doing that without saying, and because you're wrong, you're worthless. Part five. The danger of dehumanization. That's the word I keep coming back to. Dehumanization. It's a big word, but the basic idea is actually pretty simple. It's what happens when we stop seeing someone as a complete human being. We reduce them to a label, a stereotype, a position, a mistake, a group, a category. And once we've done that, we give ourselves permission to treat them differently. Because we're not really dealing with a person anymore, right? We're dealing with those people. And I think that's one of the most dangerous places disagreement can take us. Not because disagreement in and of itself is dangerous, but because dehumanization is. And it can happen gradually. It might start with I don't understand how anyone could believe that. Then those people are always like this. Then they don't care about anyone. And then they're all dot dot dot. Fill in the blank. And suddenly we've moved from disagreeing with an idea to making assumptions about millions of human beings we have never met. That's a pretty extraordinary leap. And yet we make it every single day. Part
six. Imagine that someone you strongly disagree with is standing in front of you. Not a username, not a politician, not a commentator, not a stranger on Facebook. A person. They're standing right in front of you. And before you disagree with them, you have to know three things about them. Three. And you have to know who they love. You have to know what they've been through. And you have to know what they're afraid of. Now would you still disagree? Probably. Maybe even passionally. But I wonder if you'd disagree differently. Because suddenly there's context. Suddenly there's a story there. Suddenly there's a human being attached to that opinion. And maybe that's what we're missing. Context. We know what people believe. But we don't know why. We know what they said, but we we don't know what happened to them before they said that. We know their position, but we don't know their story. And stories complicate things because it's much easier to hate a category than a person. Part seven. Kindness doesn't require agreement. So is kindness possible without agreement? I think it has to be. Because if kindness only exists when we agree, that's not really kindness. That's comfort. It's easy to be kind to somebody who thinks like you. It's easy to be patient with someone who validates what you already believe. It's easy to listen when you already know you're going to agree with a conclusion. The real test comes when somebody says something that makes you uncomfortable. Something you think is wrong. Something you may even strongly oppose. Can you still listen? Can you still ask a question? Can you still say help me understand how you got there? That doesn't mean you're going to change your mind. It doesn't mean they're going to change theirs. But you've kept the door open, and sometimes keeping the door open is the kindest thing we can do.
Part eight. Listening is not agreement. Here's another thing I think we've gotten confused about. Listening is not agreement. If I listen to you, that doesn't mean I've accepted what you've said. It means I believe you're worth listening to or being heard. That's different. I can listen to your story and still disagree with your conclusion. I can understand why you feel the way you feel and still believe you're wrong. I can recognize your humanity without endorsing your position. Those things can exist at the same time. In fact, maybe that's where real conversation begins. Because if I enter a conversation determined to change your mind, I'm not really listening. I'm waiting. Waiting for my turn to talk. I'm gathering ammunition. I'm preparing my responses. I'm looking for the flaw. But if I enter the conversation thinking, I want to understand why this person believes what they believe. Something changes. Now I'm curious. And curiosity is powerful. Because curiosity doesn't require agreement. It just requires us to believe that there might be something we don't know. Part nine. What if we're wrong? And here's the really uncomfortable part. What if we're wrong? Not about everything. It's certainly I'm certainly not suggesting that we should walk around assuming every belief we've ever had is wrong. But what if there's something we don't know? What if we misunderstood something? What if we've only heard one side of the story? What if the person we disagree with has information we haven't considered? What if they're responding to an experience we've never had? That possibility shouldn't terrify us, just make us curious. Because being willing to listen isn't weakness. It might actually be one of the strongest things that we can do.
Part ten. There are limits. Now, I want to be careful here because I don't want this episode to become everybody just be nice and everything will be okay. That's not what I'm saying. There are people who will manipulate kindness. There are people who will use civility as a weapon to avoid accountability. There are situations where walking away is healthier than continuing a conversation. And there are beliefs and behaviors that cause real harm. Kindness doesn't require us to put ourselves in harm's way. Sometimes kindness means confronting somebody. Sometimes it means saying no. Sometimes it means walking away. Sometimes it even means protecting somebody else. So I'm not arguing for endless conversation. I'm arguing against the idea that disagreement automatically makes someone less human. Because that's different. Part eleven, the people we love. And maybe the easiest place to practice this is with the people we already love. Because most of us know somebody we disagree with. Maybe it's a family member. Maybe it's an old friend. Maybe it's somebody we've known for decades. And here's the strange thing. We can know that person is loving. We can know they're generous. We can know they've shown up for us. We can know they helped us when we needed them. And then they say something we disagree with, and suddenly we're tempted to rewrite the entire person. How can someone who is kind believe that? How can someone who loves me think that? How can somebody I respect possibly see this differently. Maybe the answer is because they're human. Because they're not you. Because their life isn't your life. Because their experiences are not your experiences. Because two people can share love and still see the world differently. That's not necessarily a failure. Maybe just maybe that's part of being human.
A small challenge. So I'd like to offer a little challenge this week. Not a political challenge, not a debate challenge, a human challenge. Think of one person that you disagree with. Someone you respect. Or maybe somebody you used to respect and instead of asking how can they possibly believe that? Ask I wonder what brought them there. That's it. You don't have to change your mind. You don't have to convince them. You don't have to agree. Just get curious. If you have the opportunity, ask them not why do you believe that ridiculous thing but what experiences led you to see it that way? And then listen really listen you might still disagree. You might disagree just as strongly as before. You might discover something you didn't know and you may remind yourself of something that is very easy to forget there's another person on the other side of this disagreement.
Part thirteen where this gets hard eventually we have to acknowledge where this conversation is headed because we can talk about family disagreements and we can talk about neighbors and social media we can talk about workplace disagreements. But eventually we run into the big stuff the things that divide us the things that make people angry the things that make people afraid the things that can turn neighbors into enemies and I think that's where this question becomes most important. Not can we agree? Maybe we can't maybe we shouldn't but can we disagree without dehumanizing each other? Can we argue for what we believe without assuming the worst about everyone who disagrees? Can we defend our values without deciding that everyone on the other side lacks any values? Can we stand for something without standing against the human humanity of someone else? I don't know. But I think we have to try because if the only people we're willing to treat kindly are the people who agree with us, we really haven't learned kindness we've learned tribalism I have spent a lot of time on this podcast talking about kindness three years. And sometimes kindness sounds really simple right hold the door buy somebody a coffee check on a friend give somebody a compliment let somebody merge in traffic those things do matter they really do but maybe there's another kind of kindness a harder kind the kindness of refusing to turn another human being into an enemy simply because they see the world differently the kindness of listening the kindness of curiosity the kindness of saying I don't understand you yet instead of there's something wrong with you. Maybe that's where we need to start not with agreement but with recognition recognition that the person across from us is in fact a person that they have a story and that they have reasons they have fears hopes they have people that they love just like us. They've made mistakes they've been hurt they've been wrong all of it just like we have and maybe we don't have to agree with someone to care about what happens to them. We don't have to share someone's opinion to respect their humanity. We certainly don't have to surrender what we believe in order to make room for somebody else's humanity. Because disagreement doesn't have to become disrespect. Disrespect doesn't have to become hatred and hatred doesn't have to become dehumanization. There's a choice in there somewhere and maybe kindness lives in that choice. So I'll leave you with a question I started with. Are we losing the ability to talk to people that we disagree with if the answer is yes what are we going to do about it? I'm Mike Rathman and this is the Kindness Matters podcast.
It's kind we are going to be human This episode is made possible by the generous support of people like Stu Jackson, Dave Lewis and John Tetler.
SPEAKER_01
I appreciate you so much for tuning into this episode of the Kindness Matters podcast and I hope that you found value in this episode. If you did it would mean the world to me if you shared it with a friend or a family member or coworker took a moment to leave a comment or review. It's one of the best ways to help others discover this show. If you would like to support the show like to have both tiered and one time support options available on BuyMe a coffee as well as a workshop. You'll find both links waiting for you in the showing financially isn't possible right now that's completely okay. I mean it's tough out there these days right the most meaningful way that you can support the show is by doing one small act of random kindness each day. It truly does make a difference we will be back again next week with a brand new episode until then it's not and still be you
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
