I just read a political commentary – a hobby of mine I should take more care to resist, but we all have our bad habits.

This commentator’s theme was the importance of showing politeness to those who are wrong about one thing or another and accepting them as friends regardless.

Which got me to thinking: Those who think there’s always a right position when they evaluate positions are wrong.

Mind you, I’m not talking only about those who think their view is always the right one. I’m talking about those who think there’s always a correct view at all.

What I think … and I’m pretty sure I’m right about this … is that there are some subjects that do have right positions. Call them “facts,” because there’s some objective way of knowing what’s correct about them.

Here, for example, is a fact: I’m writing this column using Microsoft Word on a Microsoft Surface Pro that’s running Windows 10.

This isn’t disputable, or shouldn’t be. In principle, should someone doubt the correctness of this statement I could defend it, up to and including inviting skeptics to inspect my office setup, something I would be willing to do, although I’m confident you’d find the sum I’d charge you utterly unreasonable.

There’s a second meaning for right vs wrong, which happens when two parties agree on the facts but not on their interpretation. For many of us, this is where fun happens. It’s where we discover disagreements that can be resolved, or where we have opportunities to deepen our thinking about a subject.

Then there’s the third domain – values. This is where a lot of us get into trouble, because when we disagree about values there’s no way to reconcile them. Values come from tribal membership, religious leadership, and, more often than not, Mom.

If you and I disagree about one of our values, the best we can do is to decide whether we (1) agree with the other’s position; (2) can respect the opposing position (that is, acknowledge that it’s potentially as valid as our own); (3) can tolerate it, which is to say we can peaceably coexist with those who hold it, even though we are quite sure they’re entirely wrong about it. That leaves one last alternative – (4) zero tolerance – that this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.

There are people whose values can’t be reconciled, even to the level of mere toleration. There’s no point in pretending otherwise, which is why exhortations to “do the right thing” are so entirely useless: My right thing is your wrong thing and vice versa.

To illustrate: a stereotypical Apple fanperson must disagree with my choice of computer, operating system, and word processor, and doesn’t respect it, either.

So long as they can tolerate it, though … and there’s no reason for to not tolerate it, as it doesn’t affect the Apple-ite in any substantial way … neither of us has anything to worry about.

If, though, for some unaccountable reason, the Apple-phile decides they can’t tolerate having any Windows users on the same hectare as themself, one of us is going to have to leave town, probably after an unpleasant demonstration of how much we disagree.

Bob’s last word: Wherever politics happen – our interactions with colleagues in a business setting, or arguments about where government is headed in social situations – we’d all be happier, and more congenial, if we kept most political dialog in the second domain, where we disagree about our interpretations of facts.

Regrettably, reliance on “alternative facts” as a means of persuasion is on the rise, while familiarity with epistemology is not.

Well, I think it isn’t, but that’s based only on my day-to-day experience, not on formal, fact-based sociological research. Oh, well.

Anyway, I have a hard time tolerating those who deliberately craft alternative facts, and almost as hard a time tolerating those who consider their values to be facts.

But those are my values. And as you’re (presumably) a long-time subscriber I’m confident we can respect, or at least tolerate, each other’s values.

If you’re among those who can’t tolerate mine, that’s what the unsubscribe link is for.

Bob’s sales pitch: Have I mentioned the KJR archives? They include everything I’ve published under the KJR banner and its predecessor, InfoWorld’s “IS Survival Guide.” If you need the KJR take on a subject, whether it’s out of curiosity or because you need a framework or perspective to address a current professional quandary, they’re free and you’re welcome to use whatever you find.

Although if you make extensive use of my material I would appreciate attribution.

Now on CIO.com: “Bad metrics are worse than no metrics,” and especially why SMART goals just might be worse than no goals at all.