Last week, an article came out claiming it is right to be intolerant of conservatives and Republicans because their ideas are not legitimate. My political views likely fall into the broad, ill-defined category of unacceptable beliefs Sean Lundergan and Christian Ralph speak about. I think markets are usually better at lifting people out of poverty than government action is, and I am hesitant to reflexively give government power to solve societal problems when I don’t trust government leaders (like President Donald Trump) to act in my best interest. If you disagree, please change my mind rather than using social pressure to ostracize my ideas.

Intolerance is corrosive; it dehumanizes and breeds an atmosphere of fear and hatred. Rather than disparaging those we disagree with, we should treat them with empathy and compassion by listening respectfully and seeking to understand their worldview. Meanwhile, Lundergan gleefully celebrates the fact that Washington University doesn’t look like (is better than) the United States while glibly reducing people to “token right-wing friends” who think the poor deserve to die; while Lundergan thankfully clarifies that he does not intend to attack people personally, his comments create a divisive and intolerant environment. With complete certainty, Lundergan dismisses widely held ideas with which he clearly has not engaged. Moreover, treating mainstream conservative ideology as uniquely dangerous is absurd. We happily engage with Marxist ideas (as we should), despite the fact that Communist governments have slaughtered and oppressed hundreds of millions of people, and we do not accuse Marxists of structural murder for their ideas. We must talk to each other with intellectual humility, extending to others the courtesy we desire for ourselves.

Furthermore, refusing dialogue with conservative students because we disagree with them is dangerous. In 2016, 49.1 percent of voters cast their ballots for Republican congressional candidates. Unless we are ready to contend that half of Americans are irredeemably evil, we need to engage with them. Otherwise, we reduce people to caricatures, to lifeless objects of our scorn, not human beings with hopes and aspirations. We use political disagreements to dehumanize others, seeking to destroy rather than empathize. We do this without attempting to understand and without trying to learn about the ideas and experiences that formed their worldview. Almost half of the American populace supports Trump. Consider that many have legitimate reasons for doing so, and that equating their votes to racism encourages them to vote the same way. By embracing continued intolerance, we lose the opportunity to introduce new ideas to others and to refine our own views.

Americans have increasingly separated into two factions that move further and further apart, each viewing the other as evil. In doing this, we destroy important opportunities for dialogue where others could be shown their ideas are mistaken, and even damaging and bigoted. Without conversation, change is impossible. Dialogue requires tolerance, respect and love. This is true regardless of what we think about someone’s beliefs. The original article about Wash. U.’s political environment makes it clear that issues with the intellectual climate extend far beyond any article published in the student newspaper. The campus would be a different place if the many people dissatisfied with the status quo voiced their opinions and refused to allow their friends to judge or be judged for valid views. We can vehemently disagree without demonizing each other, or denying the inherent human dignity of any person, no matter their race, sexuality, religion, socioeconomic status or political beliefs.