A lot of what's wrong in the human world occurs in the simple act of careless accusation. As the modifier "careless" suggests, there are good and bad ways to accuse. In politics, perhaps most are bad.

Politicians compete, so they try to make their competitors seem like utter nitwits and maniacs.

We already have a tendency to handle blame with too much hyperbole. Politics energizes this into a frenzy that all too often (throughout history) has become socially harmful and then violent.

The good news is this is simply not necessary.

If a person is causing serious harm, we should remember that the person is one of millions. There is no way that person cannot be overpowered and safely contained.

Even Vladimir Putin, for example, is only such a danger because he is surrounded by people who let him.

Fighting bad decisions rarely involves actual fighting - or, rather, rarely requires that.

Even in a real emergency, a tranquilizer dart can take care of most craziness.

We have this attitude that to face up to what we really don't want and cannot accept, we must become extremely accusatory. We must show - nay, prove - that we are against vileness itself.

We don't like inflation? We must call Biden - or Trump - a total disaster.

It doesn't work like that. Balanced, fair criticism is much more effective than judgmentality verging on demonization.

Now, one place this can get more complicated - so far, I think the message is uncomplicated, though not necessarily easy to follow - is with ideas themselves. There are some common ideas that simply aren't accurate or helpful. It can be frustrating to see so many people fall prey to these ideas and their promoters.

I personally think it's totally fine to attack an idea as false, misguided, delusional, nonsensical, etc.

Many people, though, will take these attacks as personal and maybe even kind of vicious. They will feel you are calling them idiots.

If you have a chance to interact with them, you can show that it's the idea you oppose, not particular people.

But this is a point of nuance that takes a lot of care.

(It's something I do not usually find difficult, but it has taken practice.)

It would be straightforward enough to advise pretending that even ideas are people and have some feelings - this is sort of true by proxy, because people out there will identify with them, and feel attacked and disliked if you treat the ideas harshly.

Maybe that's even the best approach.

I might not be the best person to take that approach; I have an ethic that says you are absolutely allowed to attack my ideas if you do not attack me personally, and I'll even do my best to appreciate seeing ideas I believe in roasted.

Do unto others: I think it's fair, and I expect others to think it's fair enough.

But I know many don't feel that way, or haven't thought about it quite as I'm portraying. And that's understandable. We certainly can't all expect to have all the same thoughts.

Instead of vilifying people, attack ideas. And instead of making war on ideas, imagine they are people with some feelings, and be a little more compassionate and balanced in your critiques. Idea, behavior - same thing, more or less.

Bad behavior is comparable to a stupid idea that someone happens to strongly believe.

Try to treat them similarly in terms of your mental engagement.

We usually have to allow people to maintain stupid ideas because they are free to think what they want. And if bad behavior is not outright illegal, we often have to allow it to some extent, though we may object, call it out, etc.

But both of these rules have limits.

Sometimes we need to intervene and save someone from a stupid idea.

Sometimes we need to get in the way of a behavior so it doesn't happen, or can't continue.

Do you see the difference between this description and how people accuse political leaders, coworkers, etc, whenever they're unhappy about some result?

I would like this more precise, more effective mindset to spread.