THE PROBLEM WITH BOXES

There are good conservatives & there are bad conservatives.

There are good people on the left & there are bad people on the left.

There are good men & there are bad men.

There are good women & there are bad women.

There are good leaders & there are bad leaders.

There are good governments & there are bad governments.

There are good Christians & there are bad Christians.

There are good Muslims & there are bad Muslims.

There are good people & there are bad people.

And the list goes on.

But even those distinctions are inadequate.

Because within every one of those categories there are degrees of difference. There are good leaders & exceptional leaders. Poor leaders & disastrous leaders. There are decent people who occasionally behave badly & deeply flawed people who are capable of extraordinary acts of kindness.

Human beings are not absolutes. Nor are their beliefs, capabilities, motivations, or behaviours.

And therein lies the problem with putting people into boxes.

The variability disappears. The nuance disappears. And eventually, independent judgement disappears with it.

Instead of assessing someone on their character, conduct, decisions, or achievements, we assess them according to the label we’ve assigned them.

The box becomes the evidence.

To some on the political left, being conservative is sufficient reason to condemn someone. To some on the political right, identifying with the left is equally sufficient.

The same thinking extends to religion, gender, nationality, occupation & almost every other characteristic by which we categorise human beings.

Once someone has been assigned to the wrong box, their individual qualities become irrelevant. Their arguments can be dismissed without examination. Their motives can be questioned without evidence. Their achievements can be disregarded without consideration. And attacks against them can be justified by assumptions founded on ignorance rather than fact.

And perhaps most troubling of all, their humanity can become secondary to their classification.

It’s intellectually lazy, but extraordinarily convenient.

It removes the need to think critically, to examine evidence, to consider competing perspectives or to acknowledge that someone we disagree with might occasionally be right.

It also provides a remarkably effective weapon.

If I can convince myself that everyone belonging to a particular group is inherently bad, I no longer need to justify my hostility towards any individual within it.

The label does the work for me.

And perhaps that’s where the real danger lies.

Once we’ve reduced someone to a label, we can begin to remove their humanity from the equation.

We no longer see an individual with their own experiences, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses & contradictions. We see a representative of a group we’ve already decided is deserving of our contempt.

And that provides a convenient justification for behaving towards them in ways we might otherwise consider unacceptable.

Insults become deserved. Cruelty becomes justified. Hostility becomes righteous indignation.

Not because we’ve proven that the individual deserves any of it, but because we’ve convinced ourselves that the category does.

We excuse our own hostility because we’ve convinced ourselves that the person on the receiving end deserves it.

The box doesn’t just determine how we judge someone. It can determine how we permit ourselves to treat them.

Of course, categorisation doesn’t inevitably lead to hostility or dehumanisation. But it can create the conditions in which both become easier to justify.

And social media has made this form of thinking particularly easy. A political affiliation, a religious belief or even a single opinion can become sufficient evidence for an entire judgement of someone’s character & motives.

We increasingly judge the person before we’ve considered the argument.

Of course, categories have their uses. They help us organise information, identify shared characteristics & understand differences.

But a category is a starting point for understanding, not a substitute for it.

And there is another uncomfortable dimension to all this.

We are often perfectly capable of recognising nuance within the groups to which we belong, while refusing to extend that same consideration to those outside them.

We make allowances for our own side. We explain away inconsistencies. We distinguish between individuals. We recognise exceptions.

But when it comes to the other side, suddenly everyone is the same.

And even within our own boxes, we create smaller ones. Depending on where someone sits, or is perceived to sit, on the spectrum of acceptable beliefs, they too can find themselves judged, dismissed or excluded.

A conservative can be condemned for not being conservative enough. Someone on the left can be rejected for not being sufficiently progressive. Agree with nine positions but question the tenth & suddenly your loyalty, motives or character can be called into question.

The boxes have boxes within them.

And the boundaries are often determined by whoever considers themselves entitled to decide who belongs.

There’s an irony in all this.

We demand to be judged as individuals while insisting on judging others as members of a group.

We expect our own contradictions to be understood, our mistakes to be forgiven & our motives to be considered. Yet we can deny those same considerations to people whose beliefs differ from our own.

And we can do all of this while convincing ourselves that we’re the ones occupying the moral high ground.

Perhaps the greatest problem with boxes isn’t simply that we stop thinking about people as individuals.

It’s that we can give ourselves permission to treat them badly because we’ve stopped recognising their individuality in the first place.

And that brings me back to civility.

We cannot demand standards of behaviour from others while exempting ourselves from those same standards simply because we’ve decided they’re in the wrong box.

Disagreement doesn’t require contempt. Criticism doesn’t require cruelty. And holding someone accountable doesn’t require stripping them of their humanity.

Because when we allow a label to replace our judgement, we risk allowing prejudice to replace our principles.

And surely, we should be capable of thinking better than that.

 

HOW DID WE ALLOW SOCIETY TO SINK THIS LOW BEFORE SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

It’s no secret that I’m dismayed by the behaviour of some people in this country. Frankly, many who should know better.

I’ve been writing about the changes I’m seeing in Australian society for some years now. And I’ve made many posts on here about the growing hostility, intolerance & apparent abandonment of what I once considered basic standards of behaviour.

But increasingly, I’m seeing something that troubles me even more.

It’s no longer confined to political arguments, social media exchanges or ideological disagreements.

It’s becoming part of everyday life.

I walk into my local supermarket & hear announcements warning customers that abuse towards staff will not be tolerated. I’ve seen that abuse myself. And staff have told me it’s getting worse.

I telephone businesses & hear recorded messages delivering much the same warning.

I visit my local medical centre & see notices reminding patients that abusive behaviour towards staff is unacceptable.

And yesterday, at my local veterinary surgery, I encountered the same message. When I asked the receptionist about it, she confirmed that abuse towards staff is increasing.

For God’s sake, it’s a veterinary clinic!!

A place where people devote their working lives to caring for animals. And even there, staff are having to remind people that abuse will not be tolerated.

What on earth is happening to us?

We’ve reached a point where businesses, medical practices & veterinary surgeries feel compelled to remind adults that they shouldn’t abuse the people providing them with a service.

When did that become something, we needed to be told?

Then there’s the shoplifting & theft from businesses that I see openly applauded on platforms such as Facebook & X.

Apparently, if a business is sufficiently profitable, or its prices sufficiently unpopular, stealing from it becomes justifiable in some people’s minds.

And worse, theft isn’t confined to large corporations. Small businesses, many already struggling to stay afloat, are also victims.

Since when did disliking a business become a moral defence for dishonesty? And when did it become acceptable to walk in, take whatever you want & walk out without paying?

I must have missed the memo on that one.

And what does it say about us when people not only excuse that behaviour but publicly applaud it?

I’m not suggesting that everyone behaves this way. Far from it. But far too many do. And I am questioning why behaviour that would once have attracted widespread condemnation is increasingly being rationalised, excused or even celebrated.

And these concerns aren’t confined to my own observations.

We’ve had repeated warnings from ASIO about the growing threat of politically motivated violence, including the role of online radicalisation & inflammatory rhetoric.

According to figures reported in The Australian, the Australian Federal Police investigated 1,067 threats against Australian elected officials in 2025–26, more than 100 above the previous year.

Think about that. More than a thousand threats investigated in a single year against people elected to represent us.

And we’ve reached a point where politicians are increasingly being told that threats against their lives are simply part of the job.

How did we get here?

I’m not suggesting that someone abusing a supermarket employee is necessarily motivated by the same forces as someone threatening a politician. But these are all behaviours that raise fundamental questions about the standards we’re prepared to accept.

It saddens me enormously.

And it raises a question I don’t think we ask nearly enough.

What is happening to our sense of personal responsibility? What has happened to honesty, dignity & our sense of right & wrong?

We hear plenty about the anger in our society. The frustration. The economic pressures. The distrust of institutions. The dissatisfaction with politicians.

And yes, those frustrations are real.

But frustration may explain anger. It does not justify abuse, intimidation, dishonesty or cruelty.

I’m increasingly concerned that we’ve blurred that distinction.

There are undoubtedly people who benefit from encouraging division, resentment & hostility. Political opportunists, ideological agitators & those who profit from the attention that outrage generates.

Social media provides an extraordinarily effective platform for amplifying their messages.

But we cannot lay all the blame at their feet.

Because ultimately, people MAKE choices.

They choose what they say. They choose how they behave. They choose whether to applaud cruelty or condemn it. Whether to treat another person with respect or make that person the target of their frustration.

And I’m tired of hearing that politicians are responsible for the behaviour of people who ought to know better.

That’s not accountability. That’s an excuse. A proverbial Get Out of Jail Free card.

We can hold politicians responsible for their decisions without absolving ourselves of responsibility for our own conduct.

A society doesn’t function simply because it has laws, institutions & elected representatives.

It functions because ordinary people recognise obligations towards one another. Because there are boundaries of acceptable behaviour that don’t require a police officer, a security guard or a warning sign to enforce them.

And that’s what concerns me most.

Not simply that we’re seeing more hostility, but that we’re becoming increasingly willing to explain it away. To excuse it.

I see it daily on social media. The inevitable “but what about” defence.

But what about the politicians? What about the cost of living? What about the decisions that made people angry in the first place?

As though pointing to someone else’s failures somehow absolves an individual of responsibility for their own actions.

It doesn’t. And it never did.

We spend an extraordinary amount of time demanding accountability from the people who govern us, while becoming increasingly reluctant to demand it of ourselves.

And even as we watched the scenes of destruction reported from France over the weekend, I saw people here in Australia rushing to explain away the violence.

Blame the President. Blame the EU. Blame political decisions. Blame everyone, it seems, except those who actually committed the acts of destruction.

Of course, people are entitled to question political decisions. They’re entitled to protest. They’re entitled to demand change.

But none of that gives anyone the right to destroy businesses, attack emergency workers or set fire to buildings.

Understanding the causes of anger is not the same as excusing the consequences of someone’s actions.

And yet, increasingly, that is precisely what we’re doing.

Whether it’s someone abusing a supermarket employee, stealing from a business, threatening a medical receptionist, or destroying property in the name of protest, the principle remains the same.

We are responsible for our own behaviour.

And if we continue finding excuses for conduct, we would once have condemned, the question isn’t simply what our society is becoming.

Perhaps it’s what we’re allowing it to become.

 

WHEN POLITICAL HATRED BECOMES NORMAL, WE HAVE LOST SOMETHING FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN ARGUMENT.

I’ve been a regular contributor on social media for 17 years plus years. I’ve witnessed plenty of political arguments, disagreements, insults & pile-ons. But the vitriol, hatred, aggression & downright moronic accusations have gone too far.

 

Yesterday on X was one of the worst days I’ve ever experienced on the platform.

 

And before anyone starts pointing fingers at the left, STOP. It wasn’t the left. It was the RIGHT side of the political divide.

 

And that makes what I’m about to say all the more important.

 

Because what I experienced yesterday, unpleasant as it was, is merely a symptom of something far more disturbing. A political culture in which hostility is increasingly normalised, personal attacks are treated as legitimate debate & hatred is too often mistaken for conviction.

 

And we are now witnessing where that culture can lead.

 

An allegedly deliberate attack on independent MP Helen Haines comes against an alarming escalation in threats against Australian politicians.

 

As reported by The Australian, the AFP investigated 1,067 threats against elected officials in 2025–26, more than 100 above the previous year. The govt has committed an additional $150 million to protecting MPs.

 

The newspaper also reported that a 2025 survey found 85% of federal MPs & their staff had experienced violent, threatening or volatile behaviour, with almost half reporting incidents more than once a month.

 

ASIO’s Mike Burgess warned some time ago that the risk of politically motivated violence was already “flashing red”.

 

We’ve seen where this can lead overseas. Politicians murdered in Britain & the United States. Threats escalating into actual violence.

 

And yet, even as Helen Haines lies critically injured in hospital, people on X cannot put aside their political hatred long enough to demonstrate some basic human decency.

 

Even expressions of solidarity between political opponents are met with attacks.

 

Think about that for a moment.

 

A politician is fighting for her life, & some people’s immediate response is not concern for another human being, but an opportunity to continue their political warfare.

 

When did political disagreement become permission to abandon our humanity?

 

You don’t have to like a politician. You don’t have to agree with their policies. You can question their competence, challenge their decisions & hold them accountable. Indeed, we should.

 

But somewhere along the way, legitimate political scrutiny has become entangled with something altogether uglier.

 

Contempt for the individual.

 

And frankly, why would anyone want to step forward to serve this country knowing the sort of treatment that is now becoming par for the course?

 

When hatred becomes normalised, when cruelty is applauded & when people are treated as legitimate targets simply because of their politics, we are heading somewhere very dangerous.

 

And don’t tell me it’s only the other side doing it. Yesterday demonstrated otherwise.

 

This isn’t about left versus right. It never was. But unfortunately, that is exactly what people in this country have turned it into.

 

You only have to read some of the political declarations in social media biographies to see how thoroughly political allegiance has become entwined with personal identity.

 

And it’s not simply declarations of political loyalty. Some openly proclaim their hatred of those on the other side.

 

Hatred has become something to advertise. Almost a badge of honour.

 

Well, now we’re confronting what happens when that hatred is allowed to flourish, when hostility becomes normalised & the boundaries between political disagreement and personal animosity disappear.

 

And it’s ugly. It’s frightening. And we should be deeply concerned about where it might lead.

 

I don’t doubt that some of the hostility online is amplified by anonymous accounts, coordinated activity & bots. But we cannot conveniently blame everything on unseen manipulators.

 

Far too much of it comes from real people, making conscious decisions about what they say, what they share & how they treat others.

 

People who would presumably expect compassion, understanding & basic decency if tragedy struck their own families.

 

Yet somehow those same considerations disappear when the person suffering happens to hold different political views.

 

And that is what I find so profoundly disturbing.

 

We seem increasingly incapable of separating what someone believes politically from their fundamental worth as a human being.

 

This is no longer simply about political disagreement. It’s about the erosion of respect, compassion & the moral boundaries that should define a civilised society.

 

And we have lost sight of those boundaries.

 

Worse still, too many no longer seem to recognise why they mattered in the first place.

 

Because when we can look at another humanbeing lying critically injured in a hospital bed & see a political label before we see a person, we haven’t just lost the ability to disagree respectfully.

 

We’ve lost sight of our own humanity.