The first casualty

It's said that "The first casualty when war comes is truth" - meaning that when a war breaks out between two parties, it is no longer to be taken for granted that the truth about the war and the things happening in its wake is reported objectively. Unfortunately, this is quite predictable when you consider what war is all about - it is hard to justify that the flower of the nation's youth is about to depart in order to kill the same part of the population of another country, if it is accompanied by elaborate stories underlining that on some points, the opponent is not entirely wrong.
This is bad enough. But what's even worse is how the same tendency can be tracked all the way down to very small situations close to us, far away from the borderless consequences of global politics.
Think it over: how many times haven't you experienced two parties, both of which you value highly, who have come on bad terms with each other? Two parties, who - if you get either of them alone face-to-face - are able to relate such different stories about what has happened and the motives of the parties that you cannot help but think: is it really the same basic train of events that is the basis of both of these stories?
And here, it is quite okay to be puzzled. We might not be able to make a difference when nations fall out and beat the drums of war - but on a personal level, where "only" personal interests are basically at stake - shouldn't we become a bit better to use nuances in our expressions? to see the world from the opponent's point of view? To walk a mile in the other party's shoes, so to speak (without falling prey to Jack Handey's ironic statement)?
Of course there are people who have gone so far without thinking like this, that they end up in a situation from which it is difficult to return. But most of us would do ourselves - and other people - a favour, if we were able to accept that the world is not solely black and white. If we became better at understanding matters seen from the side, from which we do not normally see them. And if we were able to have a rational conversation about our differences, with respect for the opponent's reality.
As I read it the other day: "Sometimes, the best we can do is to admit that our opponent has a point."
(Translated from Det første offer, originally published January 21, 2018)

Room for differences

At a point in time, I came to read an article in the Dainish Railways passenger magazine Ud og Se from April 2012 about the Danish poet Søren Ulrik Thomsen.
He was quoted for the following, which I have also heard other people say, but never exactly as Søren Ulrik Thomsen does (in my feeble attempt of translation):

When I am annoyed with and very critical towards another person these days, I try to discipline myself and think of everything that is unique to him or her. The things that only this person can do, the things which I would miss if that person was no longer in the world. 

You can catch yourself thinking that there is a double-sidedness in this - that while thinking about what you would miss, you can seek some perverse pleasure by thinking this other human being dead. But apparently this is not what drives Søren Ulrik Thomsen. As he says in the following sentence: "It is a great poverty and folly not to be able to sense other people in all their diversity." Now, this is most certainly something we can learn from.(Translated from Rummelighed for forskellighed, originally published July 28th, 2012)