Agreement Should Not Be the Price of Respect

BY Viktorija

What happens when two people who agree on almost everything disagree on one thing? Apparently, for some, that one disagreement is enough to dismiss the entire person.

People are allowed to disagree. You can share values, support the same causes, and still reach different conclusions. What becomes disrespectful and frankly ridiculous, is calling someone names or attacking their character simply because they do not agree with you.

I find it troubling when people welcome discussion only until someone challenges their position. If we expect the freedom to express our own views, we should be willing to extend that same freedom to others. Agreement cannot be the price of being treated with respect.

At EXE, we recognize our responsibility as part of the media landscape. We welcome different perspectives, including those that challenge our own. We refuse to tie ourselves to one school of thought because doing so limits the questions we ask, the stories we tell, and our ability to understand experiences beyond our own.

Being based in Seattle, Washington, has made me particularly conscious of how political agreement can become a social expectation. Depending on the space, one perspective is welcomed while another is dismissed before it is even considered. That deserves scrutiny wherever it happens.

Welcoming opposing views also means being willing to question them. Respectful disagreement leaves room for scrutiny, evidence, and accountability. Personal attacks do very little to move that conversation forward.

So when we demand room for our own opinions but refuse to make room for anyone else’s, what exactly are we defending? Our principles, or an entitlement to agreement?