Episode 191: In an era where arguments often erupt into shouting matches or retreat into silence, hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada explore how we can disagree better — and why it matters more than ever.

Drawing on insights from philosophy, journalism, childhood play and even sports fandom, the conversation unfolds into a thoughtful examination of how disagreement has shifted in our culture. The hosts argue that we’ve increasingly lost sight of what disagreement is meant to do: open our minds, sharpen our thinking and strengthen our democratic institutions. Instead, disagreement has become a contest to be won, often reduced to emotionally charged sound bites or dismissed entirely.

Kyte recounts a scene of children negotiating the rules of a flag football game, using it as a metaphor for the character-building that underpins both democracy and self-governance. He connects these playground moments to the deterioration of civic norms, highlighting our increasing acceptance of executive overreach and our mistrust of those enforcing rules, ranging from referees to elected officials.

The hosts also reflect on their experiences navigating disagreements at work, in relationships and even online. They differentiate between healthy disagreement and toxic confrontation, emphasizing the importance of humility, curiosity, and mutual respect.

They caution, too, that constructive disagreement isn’t always appropriate. Silence or solidarity may be more ethical than critique in moments of grief, stress or unity. But avoiding all disagreement, they warn, risks eroding creativity, growth, and understanding — not just in politics or the workplace, but in our everyday lives.

Ultimately, this episode is a call to reclaim disagreement as a civic skill. It’s not just about speaking up — it’s about listening well, staying engaged and valuing the process of understanding even when consensus is elusive.