Should the United States start allowing women to serve in all combat roles?

Australia has announced that women will soon be able to serve in combat with the infantry, in the special forces and in other front-line positions. Today’s Question: Should the United States start allowing women to serve in all combat roles?

  • Stephen

    Should the United States start allowing women to serve in all combat roles?

    As long as it’s clean, and there’s the rub.

    Keep this in mind while considering the issue:

    Weapons are the tools of violence;

    all decent wo/men detest them.

    Weapons are the tools of fear;

    a decent wo/man will avoid them

    except in the direst necessity

    and, if compelled, will use them

    only with the utmost restraint.

    Peace is hir highest value.

    If the peace has been shattered,

    how can s/he be content?

    Hir enemies are not demons,

    but human beings like hirself.

    S/he doesn’t wish them personal harm.

    Nor does s/he rejoice in victory.

    How could s/he rejoice in victory

    and delight in the slaughter of wo/men?

    S/he enters a battle gravely,

    with sorrow and with great compassion,

    as if s/he were attending a funeral.

    31st Chapter of the

    Tao Te Ching

    Written by Lao-tzu

    From a translation by S. Mitchell

  • Alison

    Sure, for the sake of equality.

    I’d rather see us put substantially more effort into eliminating combat roles all together. Of course that’s difficult to do in a nation with military spending that’s higher than the next 14 highest spending nations combined. Our leaders need to keep creating wars to justify it.

  • Zeke

    Equal pay for equal work…

  • Teresa

    “If everyone could grow these herbal medicines and use tinctures of cannabis hemp to ease womens’ menstrual pains and to help asthmatics and recovering alcoholics and many a malady, suffering would lessen and goodwill be increased.”

    – Mother Mary Aubert

    “The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” – Carl Sagan

    “If the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” don’t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn’t worth the hemp it was written on.”

    – Terence McKenna

    “We can each resolve, every last one of us, to do the maximum that we can, in each of our given circumstances and by making opportunities, and this then becomes our personal contribution towards ending the worldwide prohibition of cannabis.” – Jayelle Farmer

    “Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.” – Bob Marley

    “Legalize cannabis and it’ll end the need for war” – Elizabeth Taylor

  • Jayelle

    Better than physical combat, learn the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense.

    We can each resolve, every last one of us, to do the maximum that we can, in each of our given circumstances and by making opportunities, and this then becomes our personal contribution towards ending the worldwide prohibition of cannabis.

  • Chuck

    Anyone who can meet the physical, psychological, and mental challenges of combat should be allowed to do so.

    Women have engaged in combat since the dawn of civilization – if they could fight then, I’m quite sure that they can fight now.

    Not sure what cannabis has to do with this question though.

  • Russ


  • GaryF

    So we can see our women soldiers coming home without arms, legs, and eyes?

    If a female soldier kills a Islamic jihadist, does he get less credit in his after world? And if he kills a woman soldier, does he get extra credit?

  • Steve the Cynic

    Sure. I have a hunch that the chicken hawks who got is into our current wars would have been less inclined to do so if they were sending America’s daughters, not just it’s sons, into direct combat. Besides, women are already in combat, every time a unit with women in it is attacked. We’re kidding ourselves when we try sanitize war. At the risk of offending feminists, I’d point out that people get more worked up about violence done to women than to men. Limiting combat units to men is one way we’ve historically tried to sanitize it. Anything we can do to highlight the horrors of war is a good thing.

    “Wars not make one great.” — Yoda

  • GaryF

    Steve, don’t forget our “kinetic military actions” that didn’t get approval from Congress. Iraq and Afghanistan were given approval from Congress.

  • Steve the Cynic is right. We treat our men as disposable objects, and our women as too delicate and incompetent to fight. It’s insulting to everyone. Of course women should be allowed in a combat role; anyone, regardless of gender or orientation, who is capable, should absolutely be allowed to. And, yes, as the world seems more upset when a woman is killed, this would bring the horrors of war to the folks who need to hear it most.

  • Steve the Cynic

    But, GaryF, Congress’ approval of military action in Iraq was sought under false pretenses (WMDs) and with a false promise (that diplomatic options would be exhausted), and with the expectation that it would be a glorious victory. Only lies and delusions can make war seem like a good thing. (And why did you think I wasn’t including NATO’s Libya intervention under the heading of “our current wars”?)

  • Chris

    No, and neither should men. End these GD wars already.

  • Jim

    I thought they already were based on the last ten years of “front”less combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Coast Guard allows women to serve in all capacities. If anyone wants the job and can do it let them. Don’t you thing that women have defended themselves and their homes and families since the first. Let them fight.

  • Jolene


    Anyone, regardless of their sex, should be at least given the opportunity to “try out” for the very demanding combat-type roles. If they pass the rigorus tests-then by all means, allow them to fulfill those roles.

    That being said, we’re talking about only a handful (3, maybe 4?) of jobs that women are not “allowed” to be in. However, with the current constructs of modern war, women are already put in “combat” roles-driving convoys, doing IED sweeps, flying combat sorties, dropping bombs. What’s the difference between that, and being a Combat Controller or a Paratrooper? Very little, really.

    As a woman in the military, I’m put in harms way every time my plane takes off from an austere airfield, and I’m even a non-combatant.

    America seems to think that it’s very progressive, when in reality, the military is stuck in a post-WWII way of thinking. There are at least a dozen countries that most in the US would consider to be “lower” than us, that have had women in combat roles for years and years.

    It will take a very strong (both physically and mentally) woman to be put in these positions, but I know that there are women who would not only be able to do it, but excel.

    Let’s get the privileged white males out of the pentagon and put more minorities (women included-we most certainly are in the military), a better representation of who the fighting troops are, in their stead. I have a feeling that more sound decisions would be made if that were to happen…

  • Philip

    No! And equality my butt. After serving 20 years in the army I will tell you without hesitation that the women who have been in combat situations and have been on the “front lines” have done so in mixed units that are not designated as combat units. That is a far cry from having women serve with a company of infantry! Each and every time we would have combatives training we would try and get the females in our unit matched up with an average sized male and they NEVER were able to 1) break loose of the hold they were in and 2) actually beat the male in hand to hand. Now go and try that with a group of 250 pound gorillas who has an instinct to kill people and break things and you should be able to see the problem. If you can’t then the only thing you’re trying to accomplish is to win some stupid idealistic argument to the detriment of our female soldiers and our combat readiness as a nation.

  • david

    Probably shouldn’t for those reasons Philip stated among others, but probably will have to if we keep up the military/economic policies we have today. For as long as out economy is based on petrodollars, we will have to have a over the top military presence. It is going to be harder and harder to sell the wars that will demand, and harder and harder to find bodies to fill uniforms.

  • Kim

    I don’t think allowing women to serve in combat will fly well with the traditional Islamists; the 25% of all American Muslims that believe Sharia Law is their rule and all women are second class.

    It might cause more problems? For example, last evening in St. Louis, MO an Arab American was assaulted at gun point in his car and had the Jewish Star of David carved into his back by two or three Islamist Muslims that said they were upset the man had posted Pro- Israel support on social media. Hmmm_ how come the main media has ignored that story?

    Personally, women in combat as some may prove to be useful for combat missions, i not useful because the majority of warriors are men and men are by nature very protective of women. Women in combat alongside men is like having your parents or offspring beside you in that it distracts and changes the focus of your actions. Women fighter pilots however are good if flying only with other women. Physically women have advantages for flying. USAF studies show that women can handle the G forces of dog fights better than men. But the traditional Mulims will be unhappy if women can be in combat on the ground. Then they have to shoot them instead of using stones while they are buried up to their neck.

  • Kim

    Phillips post is right on the mark. Women in ground combat are more of a liability when fighting beside men. ..our warriors in all services should be the best source for answering this question. They have the valid perspective from experiencing combat.

    This topic question seems to be presented to judge a small sample of MPR listeners, for a sampling policy idea for the 2012 campaign.

  • R.T.V.

    @ Stephen | September 29, 2011 5:38 AM

    I couldn’t have said it better, myself.

  • Jolene


    I think you’re missing the mark-you’re assuming that the current conflicts are being fought on the ground, hand-to-hand, trench-warfare style. Those days have been long gone.

    War today is fought with technology and air and space power, not by doing Greco-roman wrestling holds on guerillas. Phillip, you said you were in the Army for 20 years. When? Because things may have changed since you last wore your uniform.

    Kim, your comments on how the Muslim world would take women in combat roles is perplexing. Who cares what they think. By taking into consideration how they would feel about women in combat roles is a subtle form of terrorism, no? DADT was just repealed, and being gay is against their beliefs. Have you seen any backlash from that? No, and nor would you see it if women were in combat roles.

    As for women being a liability? Where does that come from? If a woman was able to prove herself able to perform the task at the same ability level as her male counterparts, how is she a liability? Have you ever been with a group of males in a combat zone? I have, and if anything, they treat you less like a woman, and expect you to be able to perform at an even higher standard. It’s not like you’re a sister or a mother, but a warfighter.

    Once again, post-WWII mindsets are prevailing. It’s 2011, not 1954.

  • Philip

    @Jolene – I retired 1 year ago. What you are failing to see is what actually happens in a combat unit and I have been on two combat tours (total of three years) since 9-1-1. I was never referring to “trench-style” warfare. I get so irritated with this discussion and how the press leaves out a great deal in “informing” the public. Let’s do a day in the life of the infantry and keep it real, shall we? Don’t cut out the things that make us uncomfortable or squeemish or that would have a negative effect on the argument for women in combat units. Unless women who want to be in a combat unit start taking testosterone treatments and bulk up and develop an aggressive killing spirit, willing to rip the guts out of someone, then this becomes a stupid argument.

  • Jolene

    Wow. I’m glad you retired. I would never want someone as narrow-minded as you running my show.

    BTW-I’ve deployed three times since 2005, so I think it’s unfair for you to assume that I haven’t seen the “reality” of war. I’m a flight medic. Those realities are very, very real to me.

    Ha! And do you really think that women would have to take male hormones to be psycho killers? Ridiculous. Besides, it’s not like the ranks would be inundated by thousands and thousands of women wanting to be in combat-designated positions. We’re talking very few, and not just infantry (not that they’re very picky with who they take, anyway) positions, either.

  • Philip

    @Jolene – the ranks inundated by thousands of combat-designated positions? You’re actually going to tell me that the military, in allowing women to serve in combat roles, is going to have some policy that can differentiate between the VERY few women who MAY be able to do the job and those who simply want the infantry MOS for career progression or making a statement on equality? I’m glad you’re a combat medic and I’m sure you do your job very well. Are you going to be one of the females to change your MOS so you can be a “warrior?”

    As far as assumptions are concerned, you’ve made some startlingly wrong ones yourself, referring to when I was in the service and how I view combat. Please do not even begin to tell me that being a flight medic has ANY relation to going on daily patrols, manning a OP/LP, engaging hostile forces which shoot back, or fighting hand to hand when needed. And yes, it does still happen. Being a part of a fire team is a far cry from anything else in the military.

  • Kim

    Jolene: My comment on what repercussions we will see from American Muslims that believe in Sharia Law was supposed to be in sarcasm because_ we have a President who for his first 30 months in office couldn’t get himself to even call a spade_ a spade. he wouldn’t use the word “Islamist terrorists” in his speeches. His apologetic attitude to countries that are not our allies to America means he cares more about other countries perceptions of us then he does for America. Good lord, he even supports the U.N. to move to pass the Small Arms Treaty act_ a move to further regulate all gun sales here in America!

    The U.N. will now dictate to us_ what our rights are? The U.N. is now a majority of anti-American toned countries.

    Recall that it is the U.N. that appointed Syria to the Human Rights council..a dictatorship that allows murdering kids to scare the populace into not protesting.

    How does this relate to the women in combat question? Because the U.N. might want to expand the so called Peace Keeping forces which many USA soldiers do not support participating in since they gave their allegiance to the USA, not to the corrupt U.N.

    Kissinger once said that the U.N. Peace Keeping force ( a global military) may be “resisted by Americans now but when San Francisco has rioting in the streets, then they will be glad to see the UN forces come in.”

    Henry Kissinger along with the CFR and other supporters of a One World Order clearly set the stage for changes being seen each day in America and one of those is the change in women in combat roles.

    Ever wonder why it was_ that Obama refused the sale of American made M-1 rifles being held in storage in Korea, to be cleaned and resold to the Civilian marksmanship Program ( CMP) something that has been operating since post WWII. Obama spokesperson told the South Korean news that it was because they worried the military surplus rifles could end up in terrorists hands or that their could be accidents from those rifles.

    This is what Hillary and Holder and Obama all have supported in the UN’s Small Arms Treaty..thank GOD our military soldiers will never stand for this attempt at take over by the UN. Vote out this current administration in 2012. unless we want to see the UN control America.

  • Jolene


    No, I would never change my MOS (AFSC) to “make a statement,” or be a “warrior” ( wait…are you telling me that the only “real” positions are the ones that “do” the fighting? So, you look down on those doing the support? Making sure you’re fed and paid and housed? Hmmm…), besides, I scored high enough on my ASVABs to get a “better” job…

    All of this just sounds like a bunch of men afraid of their masculinity being challenged. The military is rife with the “good ole’ boys club” mentality. What?! A woman doing my “warrior” job? Oh, no! My perceived identity as a man is no longer just a “manly” identity. Get over it.

    As studies have shown, men who join the military are typically “traditional” in their role expectations, whereas women who join are typically “non-traditional” with gender-role designation.

    Hence, the conflict.

    Oh, and Kim? You sound like a conspiracy theory nut, and what you posted has nothing to do with the question. (even though you’ll argue it does…but that’s what makes you sound like a nut?)

  • Jeff


  • Kim

    Jolene: You fail to do the research and instead you use the old “must be a conspiracy” excuse.

    Hillary supported the UN Small Arms TREATY back in early 2010, shortly after Operation Gun Runner was underway…do the math.

  • Philip

    @ Jolene – you are diluting the issue and trying to bring confusion to this argument by suggesting that I look down on combat support and service support jobs. I do not. They are just as important and anyone who has served has done an honorable thing.

    The issue is whether or not women are capable of fighting in a combat unit. I don’t believe they are and all anyone has to do is to examine society and history. It is men who commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, muggings, domestic violence, etc. It is primarily men who get involved in UFC, boxing, and other forms of fighting. It is boys who settle arguments on the playground with a good old fist fight. It is men who would rather watch a violence packed action movie over a romantic comedy. Most men have the ability to turn into violent, aggressive killers when needed and most women don’t. It’s as simple as that. These are the type of people from our society who need to be in the combat units. They kill people and break things and they do it well.

    Like I said in my first post, if people can’t see this then all they are doing is to argue simply to be right on an idealistic crusade.

  • Bill

    In 1971, Presidential candidate, and decorated World War ll fighter pilot Senator George McGovern said “I’m sick and tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in”. He meant “young people”. And NO! The US should not allow women OR men to be pawns and fodder for the insane and immoral wars of “old men”. There is a better way. Resist all war!

  • EAL

    The absolute first requirement of the government is to protect the nation from invasion both foreign and domestic. The reality is that at times, killing is necessary. This is unique aspect the military brings to society and this is vastly different than any other segment in society, including police [peace] officers. There is nothing politically correct in framing the mission. If the job can be done by females with that reality, then there is no issue. If outside organizations attempt to temper down this reality (e.g., hurt feelings, humanity, etc.) then there is a problem. As General Sherman stated, “War is hell!”

  • kim

    As long as we allow those who scheme to divide us in matters of the country and our freedoms and our need to protect our country, then nothing is gained. The Military risks their lives and likely it is those organizations that know from real life experiences on what works.

    In 1948 this cartoon clip in the link below could just as easily be valid today_ the promise of accepting any “ism” to save us is a ruse; e.g., Progressivism, liberalism, socialism or Marxism is destructive.

    See this cartoon here:

  • betty

    dear kim,


  • kim

    @betty: No, conservatism is he only one of those “ism” that supports the Constitution, it is the only one that does not seek to “redistribute other’s income and wealth, it is the only one that does not call for government to control every facet of our lives.

  • Kiko

    @Kim, like someone else already mentioned, you are the poster child of what I call “a nut case”. I don’t know how old you are or what your gender is, but all I can imagine is you walking on the street and constantly looking over your shoulder because a muslim might come behind you and abduct you.Oh by the way, stop spreading hate, muslims do not regard females as second class citezens but the center of all mankind. Please educate yourself before spreading rumors and paranoia. Now, back to the question: Yes, if woman can perform the duties and pass the physical requirements, and no if she doesn’t simple as that. No BS that and this.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Kim, don’t forget libertarianism, captialism, mercantilism, anarchism, royalism, nationalism, and even patriotism, as well as conservatism. About the only “ism” that has any credibility with me is pragmatism.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “….conservatism is he only one of those “ism” that supports the Constitution,….”

    Bovine feces!

  • david

    How about kimism, that’s when you regurgitate items originally posted on right wing extremist websites as if they were facts. Or a bachmannism, when you just make them up yourself.

  • Kim

    @Kiko, posted, “muslims do not regard females as second class citezens but the center of all mankind. Please educate yourself before spreading rumors and paranoia.” LMAO 🙂

    Here’s the thing_Kiko is either a Muslim Islamic radical plant posting here to watch and shut down any dissent or is simply an idiot who is so uninformed. Good lord, do you think the PLO or Pakistan Hamas fakes their own vids showing adulterous women being buried and then stoned by them? Duoh.

    Did you not see the young lady on the cover of Time Magazine showing her nose and ears mutilated by Sharia Law? Iran has a pastor, former Muslim, they want put to death for the crime of…T Da…violating Sharia Law; he converted to Christianity and they expect him to die for that…Islam’s Sharia Law is an ancient sick perverted inspired piece of evil created to keep an Islamic dictator in charge, the days of Muhamed.

    IF ANYONE in America agrees with Sharia Law, then those are really saying they are anti-America, anti-Constitution and are an enemy of this country and our freedoms. Deport them and cancel their Visa..that includes keeping out the sick twisted freak Achmendinajad of dare Obama allow that freak to come here and then allow him to stay to dine at the most Progressive liberal educational realm being Columbia University.

    Read The Koran and get a clue. Kiko’sposting seems like the false use of the Muslim Brotherhood’s creation of the term, ” Islamaphobia” That is no longer bought by any American that can read. So Kiko shoudl spend a month in pakistan and see the women in prison for defying their husbands rule and for disfiguring themselves with acid and scalding oil so their sick twisted husbands won’t want them back….Radical traditional Islam is simply an ancient perversion of mankind…and I don’t want our American women being in harm’s way by doing combat roles.

  • Kiko

    @ Kim,

    OMG, you just confirmed my prediction of you being a “pinhead”. All the pundits’ talk on FOX News about Muslims this and that really has worked on your “little”head that has really no idea what Islam is or muslims in general. You mention stories of people being turtured or murdered on Pakistan and so on, but you fail misserably to link any of these actions and being a muslim. Before you start ant-american this and that please learn to differentiate between a country’s/tribal culture and the religion of Islam as a whole, these two are completely different matters. Plus, to be fair that what these women suffered is brutal and inhumane and should be condemned by anyone regardless of their religion. Now, on women issue, do you know the US(West) has the worst statistics when it comes to women abuse? Of course not, you ignore studies and rather follow Hannity or O’Really. Below are stats for the US alone: Wake up Kim and learn the world.

    One in 6 women have experienced an attempted or completed rape. Nearly 7.8 million women have been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. Sexual assault or forced sex occurs in approximately 40-45% of battering relationships.1 in 12 women have been stalked in their lifetime.13 81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner; 31% are also sexually assaulted by that partner.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Combat roles should be exclusive to members of congress and their children.

  • Clark

    Sure why not send them into combat. The far left loves quotas for unqualified candidates for law school, medical school, etc.

    Why not women on the front lines to fulfill the quota message.

  • Sue de Nim

    Kim, please! Your latest diatribe about Islam is absolutely no different from critics of Christianity who claim it’s an evil religion, based on things like the crusades and the inquisition, or the fact that “Christians” have engaged in oppressive colonialism, religious wars, the slave trade, the Native American genocide, persecution of homosexuals, bombing abortion clinics, and yes, the subjugation of women. If it’s unfair to judge Christianity based on the worst behavior of Christians, the same goes for Islam and the behavior of muslims.

  • Kim

    @Kiko…. what you fail to recognize in your rant is that in the USA we have something calls Constitutional laws that can’t be will nilly ignored and we have courts to uphold those laws and the perpetrators to be accountable. In most Islamic countries, the courts sanction such atrocities against women. ANY wonder now why Iran sentenced a pastor to death this week because he wouldn’t recant switching to Christianity???? Sharia law dictates death to those who leave the Islamic faith.

    Kiko’s argument uses the old smoke and mirrors approach_ to compare the USA crime rate to the sanctioned Islamic law crimes against women doesn’t work and saying those acts are merely tribal customs negates the act that their customs are_ ARE indeed based on following Sharia Law. If you like Sharia law so much and are anti-women rights, then why don’t you go live in Iran or pakistan?

  • Kim

    @ Sue de Nim;

    You fail to realize that the past evils associated with Christianity were not due to the tenants of the Bible , it was not due to the scriptures but due to power hungry leaders hiding behind Christianity, many many hundred years a go.

    On the other hand, Islam today still acts to live out the doctrines of oppression and to accomplish their stated goal of a take OVER of THE WORLD. World domination is the traditional Islamic goal as so stated by todays Islamic leaders in Yemen, Afghanistan and Iran. They quote the Koran to support that goal. It was Quadafi who spoke on Islamic domination but to be headed up by him… so get a clue. You set up a straw man argument to defend the evils of traditional ( AKA: radical?) Islam that is in operation today as it was on 9-11.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Kim, while I appreciate your work in bringing to our attention some of the ridiculous conspiracy theories and preposterous rhetoric of right wing extremists, you really are going too far now. As an American, I am embarrassed when other Americans speak so hatefully and beligerently about people in the rest of the world. When you imply that you are a true American, and those who disagree with your incendiary, bigotted opinions are not, you defame America. I resent your presumption in declaring what opinions are “American” and “anti-American” and who has a right to call themselves Americans. Diversity of opinion is an American value; get used to it.

  • Kim

    @Steve the Cynic__

    As you wrote, ” Diversity of Opinion is an American value ” but when liberals disagree they call us racist, or it must be a conspiracy theory. Recall that it was the Obama administration that told Reed to rally his base with saying, ( it was recorded because they didn’t know the microphone was still on)…

    “The key words we need to use now against them in all media points ( against the Republicans) are RADICAL and Extremist..and as Rahm said in a speech, “even if a conspiracy turns out to be true, we still deny it. ”

    You know what really should offend everyone instead of my disagreeing with coddling radical islamists? Its that tax dollars of $770 MILLION have been spent to refurbish Mosques over seas…clearly unconstitutional to use tax money for religious use let alone_ in Egypt where we did not harm their structures in war….. or the bilklions still being loaned to Obama campaign supporters. Check those stories released today showing who is behind those loans to the so called electric Green company groups. Then check your pay stub and see how your net is after tax deducted .

    Name call all you want_ but facts speak for themselves. You and a few others refuse to acknowledge the facts, let alone do the research to discover them unless checking with extreme left groups of Media Matters, CAP and MNBC pundits has any value.

    Diversity of Opinion is good and 1st Amendment guaranteed but that does NOT mean we all have to be silent or agree with such anti-American nonsense.

    You mentioned anti_American? Anything that supports those who seek to collapse our country, to remove our freedoms and diminish the Constitution are anti_American by definition of belonging to America..we don’t pledge our allegiance to any country but our own yes, communists and traditional Islamists and those who support George Soros’ desire for spreading his Open Society ( AKA: One world Governance of the elite) are in that group.

    If you are offended by a difference in opinion and you seem offended when facts are presented that are contrary to your “beliefs”, then stop reading here. 🙂

    Maybe it is actually YOU who are the racist biggot for telling me to be silent, in so many words, by crying that I spread hatred for those truths of Islam. BTW, my mother was Muslim as a child before immigrating, then she converted.

    Shabbat shalom,


  • Alison

    Eric Ringham – Isn’t it about time to start reining in the troll(s) a bit?

  • Steve the Cynic

    Can we all agree on the following propositions?

    1. Liberal is not a synonym for evil.

    2. Neither is conservative.

    3. Thinking of the world as being divided between “us” and “them” is a mistake.

    4. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist on the other side. (And why are we taking sides, anyway? And why do we think there are only two sides?)

    5. Not everyone who disagrees with you is part of a sinister movement to undermine what you value.

    6. Skepticism is good, not just about official sources of information, but also about alternative sources, and one’s own ideas and motives.