Some of you may already be familiar with George Hegel’s philosophical framework summed up with the equation:

Thesis + Antithesis -> Synthesis

In this framework…

1. Someone presents a viewpoint (the thesis).
2. Someone else presents a counter viewpoint (the antithesis).
3. A resolution reached from the compromise of those (the synthesis).

In political theory, following this framework can lead to the advancement of a society — whether for the better or for the worse. If you pay attention to politics, you will likely see this play out for any topic imaginable: citizenship, sexuality, religion, wealth, healthcare, infrastructure, taxes, age, race, gender, etc.

Though social media and the 24-hour news cycles have brought many benefits with them, they have also allowed voices on the polar extremes to be elevated to a boiling point, as people who likely would have been in peaceful agreement over 90% of what happens in life get bombarded with specific instances of “thesis” and “antithesis” without seeing the humanity behind those who hold the opposing views. If they don’t take the sides of the loudest voices, they are ostracized for their apathy, and if they do take sizes, they are attacked by the political opposition. This can elevate fear, anger, aggression, and vitriol. In the past, people may have “agreed to disagree” or have simply not spoken about their differences in beliefs.

Those who are in power — whether politicians, lobbyists, influencers, et al. — want to play the Hegelian Dialectic to maintain or grow power and wealth. Often, they have no intention of the “synthesis” step, as they’d lose their power and influence. Think about any topic that can be politicized. There’s always someone yelling about it, asking for donations or votes. Then those people don’t follow through with the promises or do as little as possible to keep the “thesis” and “antithesis” alive with no “synthesis” actually planned. It’s profitable for those in power to keep those not in power fighting!

So how does this relate to the SDK Community, of Breacher of Hulls? I’m glad you asked…

I’ve been trying my hardest to give a voice to everyone equally, and it’s a very difficult balance to strike. There are inevitably people with polar opposite views on different topics, so someone will always be angry with just about anything — particularly regarding closely-held beliefs about how someone lives or traits about someone.

A disagreement is not a “-phobia” and does not make someone an “-ist”, unless that individual intends to harm others over the beliefs. Try to break down the barriers of this dialectic and synthesize friendship and understanding with those who disagree with you on closely-held topics. Maybe there’s an underlying reason you had not foreseen. Could someone have been hurt by someone holding an opposing view and thinks others with that view are the same way? Could someone have once held the same view as you but switched sides? Could someone even have a legitimate reason for disagreement but still respect you as an individual?

Please stop seeing those who disagree with you as faceless enemies and realize they no one agrees on every single aspect of life. We are all individuals with our own experiences. Perpetuating hatred solves nothing.

Let me close out with a story…

Several years ago on Twitter/X, I had a heated political debate with another guy in a thread. We encountered each other in other debates that went the same way, as well. We learned that we disagree on just about every topic imaginable except for the importance of family and the enjoyment of foods from numerous cultures. We mutually decided to follow each others’ accounts to receive exposure to opposing views and have made a pact that if either of us travels on business to the city where the other lives, the local one will treat the visiting on out to dinner, and we will discuss our families.