For anyone who has given a passing glance to their local newspaper or Facebook newsfeed (which seems to have unfortunately become the same thing for many), it is clear that we are part of an increasingly passionate culture where a variety of views are not merely intersecting, but clashing. From the refugee crisis to the current bathroom debates, it is evident that the United States is home to a host of different views and approaches to the world.

At this point, it would be easy to conjure up memories of schoolteachers emphasizing the value of differences, and idealistic public speakers talking with broad, beautiful words about the wonders of diversity. However, the reality is that diversity is hard. It is actually quite infuriating. It is not about just race or culture. Diversity means that both the “conservatives” and “liberals” have opinions in the same space. It means the “pro-lifers” and “pro-choicers” are allowed to think as they do. It means that Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders can inhabit the same political system.

That’s when diversity goes from glittering and idealistic to realistic and scary.

Each of you reading this has already had both positive and negative feelings appear while you read that last paragraph. That’s natural. A professing “liberal” will naturally feel some sort of distaste when they think about conservative policies, just as a professing “conservative” will feel that same distaste for liberal policies. This is a product of having opinions about the world.

The problem is not that people have opinions; the problem comes when we choose to identify people with their views so much that we forget they are people.

We have all seen this before. In fact, we have probably all done this before.

It’s in the sneers of people shaking their heads and talking about how the liberals are ruining the country with their ignorance. It’s in the angry jabs that claim conservatives are nothing but bigots holding the U.S. back. We take another person’s beliefs and reduce them twice: once to their beliefs, and then those beliefs to our opinions about those beliefs. Then, we post an angry comment somewhere on the Internet that already assumes we know everything there is about the other person, as we justly condemn them for their inhumanity and ignorance.

By this point, we are not even engaging with another human being. We are just arguing with ourselves, and producing a society that is too busy arguing with itself to actually talk to another person. It is not very productive and creates an increasingly narrow world for all parties involved.

It does not matter if someone is conservative, liberal, a non-conformist or adamant about adhering to party lines. All of us have successfully closed off our worlds from others. In this climate, the public forum becomes nothing more than a boxing ring.

That being said, it is doubtful that any of us finds the prospect of a society characterized by people yelling around in their own little bubbles and duking it out in the public arena particularly appealing. Not only is it not ideal, it is pretty dismal.

Luckily, it is not the only option.

Civil discourse is public conversation with the purpose of understanding individuals and groups that hold opinions on different ends of the spectrum. It also happens to be what the United States lacks at the moment.

Whereas much of the political discussion that occurs now is based on straw men that do not adequately represent either side, civil discourse is a mode of discussion that focuses on actually understanding another’s viewpoint. This understanding allows for more informed criticism. Rather than attacking a position that a person does not even hold, someone can critically see the shortcomings of another person’s actual argument and engage on that basis.

Individuals are also able to have more informed opinions as a result of this. A person can look at a social issue, form an initial opinion, hear arguments both for and to the contrary, and develop a better position and understanding of why they hold to it in the presence of valid criticism. This sounds a lot better than having a few groups of people simply reiterate their previous arguments louder and with more insults until someone gets tired or another issue pops up, which is what happens far too often in our current cultural and political climate.

There is a lot more to be said on this topic, some of which I intend to write on in subsequent weeks. However, what becomes vital here is respect. As we seek to understand the opinions of others, we actively honor one another as people, instead of attacking one another as if we are the embodiments of different perspectives. With this as our means, we can understand both the positions people hold and what reasons and experiences contribute to why they do so. This is fundamental to our development not only a citizens sharing a common country, but as human beings sharing a common world.