Why tolerate?

[Gees]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, that's what I had in mind.

Oh goody! Trump would love that. He always believed he would be a better king than he is a President.

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

Would you tolerate it if by voicing their opinion they incite others to, say discriminatory practices, or even violence?

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Now I see your confusion. You are under the impression that we think stopping one bully somehow causes all bullies in the world to suddenly turn over a new leaf. We are under no such illusion, and I'm surprised you'd suggest such a thing

And you seem to be suggesting that if we'd tolerated Mr. Hitler we would have avoided Stalin. I'm unsure why you'd think that.

Tolerance doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves, but how do we know the line we draw doesn't increase intolerance and therefore hatred?

As MigL pointed out we have chosen very different paths in the past (fight him tolerate him, and let's rule out Mr Hitler for this example, as an argument could be made that we were defending ourselves.). My point is that not everyone can fight back, at least not effectively in terms of violence, but we can defy the bullies while we tolerate as most recently demonstrated by Nelson Mandela.

On 7/22/2019 at 2:15 PM, iNow said:

We can acknowledge their rights to feel what they do and hold differing opinions, but their freedom to punch me ends at the tip of my nose.

Only if you're strong enough to stop them, and in that strength lies the insidious nature of this problem; as a youth I was big enough and ugly enough to have been avoided by the bullies, it didn't stop me getting sucker punched, on several occasions, by the wanna be's looking to gain a rep and despite my strength I never saw them coming, or going (when I didn't drop); so any intolerance/hatred/anger I felt was wasted, not only because I had no enemy to fight, but because I never knew when/if the next sucker punch would land.

 

If there is good and bad in all of us and each is subjective, how do you know when I'm doing which?

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...how do we know the line we draw doesn't increase intolerance and therefore hatred?

We don't, of course. But I don't see that as relevant. I'm not going to let someone abuse me because I'm worried that they might become a bigger jerk than they are now.

 

Quote

Tolerance doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves...

It does according to the definition that I'm familiar with (e.g. Merriam Webster). Defending ourselves means we are NOT tolerating the bad behavior.

tolerate

 verb

tol·er·ate | \ ˈtä-lə-ˌrāt  \

tolerated; tolerating

Definition of tolerate

 

transitive verb

1a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We don't, of course. But I don't see that as relevant. I'm not going to let someone abuse me because I'm worried that they might become a bigger jerk than they are now.

We can all behave like abusive assholes. When it's pointed out, most of us can recognize our poor behavior and we apologize for it. If you don't apologize and continue the behavior, you become an asshat, and there's a wardrobe change. 

Behavior should be the focus of tolerance. We need to be able to point out bad behavior, if only to give people a chance to do better. Some will always be uncaring and insensitive to the ethics of others, but I think most are just unaware they're being jerks until it's pointed out. Being intolerant of bad behavior is actually a service to most of us. I don't mind having it pointed out when I'm being an asshole. I'd hate to wear the hat.

[seriously disabled]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 6:38 PM, Danijel Gorupec said:

As I see it, you are not required to tolerate infinitely. On the contrary, you are expected to find a solution to whatever bothers you.

Instead, the advice to tolerate should be understood as: tolerate until you find a solution that won't lead to escalation of violence.

Solutions can vary. Walking away is a respected one.

I've been bullied (and ignored) due to my physical appearance a lot, possibly more than anyone here can count.

And I don't agree that violence is the answer. Sometimes violence can lead to serious injury and even death, especially if the bully is much stronger than you and more muscular.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, seriously disabled said:

I've been bullied (and ignored) due to my physical appearance a lot, possibly more than anyone here can count.

And I don't agree that violence is the answer. Sometimes violence can lead to serious injury and even death, especially if the bully is much stronger than you and more muscular.

If I'd seen a much stronger person bully you, I would've let the bully know you weren't alone. I'd let them know nice and loudly that I, for one, was ready to stand up for what's right. Right there, right now. I'm not being violent, I'm letting the bully know where their behavior goes over the line. The law is on my side. 

If you'd come to me and told me this much stronger person bullied you, I'd confront them with that. We'd talk about what happened, why this person is using their far greater strength against you. Confrontation doesn't have to mean violence. Sometimes people have to be shown their behavior is wrong. 

All of this is very subjective, of course. Context is very important. Tolerance is a threshold, not a blanket.

[koti]

On 7/22/2019 at 3:30 PM, dimreepr said:

Why should I tolerate their intolerance and hatred when I can get them back, for what they've done...

On the face of it, such a seductive argument... So why, or, is it wrong?

Tolerate can also mean not letting your emotions out, keep your high ground and use it to to outsmart people. Ofcourse „tolerate” can mean a thousand other things - what did you mean? Getting along with people means tolerating a lot untill you find a nishe to minimize the manipulation to a minimum. What bothers me personally is having to manipulate people and myself for that matter to keep things intact - its just not possible to go full throttle without serious consequences.  I have a neighbour who let go recently...he parades in his robe with a bottle in his hand at 10am in the apartment garage not knowing if his Maclaren is his anymore. It never leaves the garage btw because it can’t due to too low suspension...it came on a trailer 6 months ago and thats that. He refuses to tolerate anyone and anything and he is completely content with himself. Hes got at least 6 other cars and a twenty something girlfriend being 60+. I think once you decide to go the intolerance route, whatever the circumstances you end up alone. Inevitably. 

[naitche]

Why tolerate?

Because its intolerant to do otherwise. 

 To promote or increase tolerance with its negative value doesn't make any sense to me.

That doesn't mean we should submit or give way to intolerance, or expect that others should. Then it becomes oppression.

To demand others give ground or submit to intolerance is oppression. 

That is a different question.

 I would not like to be party to oppression in the name of tolerance. 

A backlash should be expected in that choice.

 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, naitche said:

Why tolerate?

Because its intolerant to do otherwise. 

Thanks for the platitude.

4 hours ago, naitche said:

To promote or increase tolerance with its negative value doesn't make any sense to me.

Negative value? (doesn't make sense to me.

4 hours ago, naitche said:

That doesn't mean we should submit or give way to intolerance, or expect that others should. Then it becomes oppression.

To demand others give ground or submit to intolerance is oppression. 

That is a different question.

 I would not like to be party to oppression in the name of tolerance. 

A backlash should be expected in that choice.

I think oppression is a rather strong word, perhaps snowflake or PC police.

[dimreepr]

When did you last suffer because you tolerated?

[Alex_Krycek]

On 7/23/2019 at 6:06 PM, zapatos said:

I agree. For most people 'tolerating' a bully means you deteriorate physically or mentally over time. Very few people can just let it keep happening with no ill effects. 

When I was a sophomore in high school there was a senior bully who picked on me and two of my friends. We finally started acting as one and when he got physical with one of us, he suddenly found himself fighting three kids. He quickly backed off.

I agree with this statement.  I'm still a little unsure about the circumstances in which the OP is operating, but if you are dealing with a schoolyard bully, then the rules of engagement are different:

• 1.)  If you're under-age (a minor), you're unlikely to face any legal consequences for fighting this person.  (Unless you seriously injure him, that is) 
• 2.) Unlike in the real world, where you can simply avoid the person and negate him/her from your existence, in a school environment you are forced to co-mingle daily with the aggressor in the same environment.  This puts you in the unfortunate situation of feeling trapped.
• 3.)  If a person is harassed in the "real world", as an adult he/she can report the aggressor to the police and get a restraining order, while in school the teacher will supposedly look out for you.  But let's be honest - secondary school is like prison: the teacher can't help you all the time and telling the teacher only increases the bully's rage.

So what are your options?

• 1.)  Ignore the bully.  This is the unrealistic standard that parents foist upon their children, as if bullies have any ethical standards.  In my view this approach doesn't work.  Bullies see your indifference as weak passivity and an invitation to continue their harassment.
• 2.)  Engage the bully.  This is highly effective in my experience.  I was bullied for a while in high school by this sick kid named Trevor.  Everyday in class he would insult me and my family repeatedly in the most despicable manner.  Then one day he started physically hitting me.  I ended up punching him in the face a couple of times and then put him in a headlock until the teacher came and broke up the fight.  He didn't bother me again.  It's a cliché, but bullies are weak cowards.  They only respond to force.  Fighting a bully works. 
• 3.)  Coalition Formation.  If you know of other kids who are bullied, you could potentially recruit them into a group with a shared objective (similar to zapatos' experience).  Attack the bully together - strength in numbers. 
• 4.)  Learn to Fight.  If there is a boxing gym or martial arts dojo in your community, then this is an excellent resource for you.  Tell the instructors at the gym or dojo about why you are joining.  Be 100% honest.  Tell them a bully is making your life a living hell and you want to learn to defend yourself.  They will immediately understand your situation and offer you advice.  If you can make friends with a boxing coach or MMA instructor and participate in formal training it will help significantly I think. 

This guy has some decent advice:

 

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I'm still a little unsure about the circumstances in which the OP is operating

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about school bullies.

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about school bullies.

Is it related to family?

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is it related to family?

The OP was an example of what people may say to justify why they don't want to tolerate a selective group of people; which seems to be prevalent in our society ATM. 

To be clear, I'm advocating tolerance in almost all cases, because we never really find ourselves in a situation where intolerance makes it better, both for them and us.  

[naitche]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Thanks for the platitude.

Sorry if you see  it that way. I think its more than a platitude. Because..

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Negative value? (doesn't make sense to me.

The question implies a positive value for tolerance. If tolerance has no value,  then it wouldn't much matter if I choose to tolerate intolerance, or not.

There would be no value to be gained either way.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think oppression is a rather strong word, perhaps snowflake or PC police.

If the goal is to reduce existing freedoms, I think the persons targeted would find that oppressive.

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When did you last suffer because you tolerated?

If this was directed at me, I haven't so prefer to tolerate.

Up to the point where my freedoms and personal space, or other peoples, are threatened.

[zapatos]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To be clear, I'm advocating tolerance in almost all cases, because we never really find ourselves in a situation where intolerance makes it better, both for them and us.  

The point of being intolerant of white supremacists is to make it worse for them. 

Trump is tolerant of white supremacists. You seem to be on his side in that matter.

[iNow]

Maybe this is a situation where we can apply math, specifically how we multiply positive and negative integers.

Let’s just apply that same algorithm here. For example:

* Being tolerant of tolerance is positive. 

* Being intolerant of tolerance is negative. 

* Being tolerant of intolerance is negative. 

* Being intolerant of intolerance is positive. 

That last one where we multiplied two negatives gave us a positive.

Voila. Problem solved. Math FTW

Edited July 27, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

Don't forget advanced math!

Being intolerant of tolerance of intolerance is a positive.

[naitche]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

The point of being intolerant of white supremacists is to make it worse for them. 

Your example is a group of people who perceive a threat to their chosen manifestation of being, by another.

How does "making it worse for them " reduce their perception of threat? Doesn't that reinforce it?

Quote

Trump is tolerant of white supremacists. You seem to be on his side in that matter.

Intolerant of tolerance?  This may have been directed @dimreepr

But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend.

As above.

Edited July 27, 2019 by naitche

[naitche]

1 hour ago, naitche said:

 

But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend.

As above.

Correcting myself................

What I will tolerate does not indicate the position I will choose to hold. That doesn't give you the right to assign one on my behalf.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe this is a situation where we can apply math, specifically how we multiply positive and negative integers.

Let’s just apply that same algorithm here. For example:

* Being tolerant of tolerance is positive. 

* Being intolerant of tolerance is negative. 

* Being tolerant of intolerance is negative. 

* Being intolerant of intolerance is positive. 

That last one where we multiplied two negatives gave us a positive.

Voila. Problem solved. Math FTW

It's all about the connection.

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

The point of being intolerant of white supremacists is to make it worse for them. 

I don't know any, so my intolerance of them doesn't make it worse for them, it makes it worse for me.

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Trump is tolerant of white supremacists. You seem to be on his side in that matter.

Trump, as head of state, has a connection and yes his tolerance of them does seem to be a negative, but I think it's more of a neutral state: It may provide a fillip for them but it also provides a banner for us. If, for instance, I decide to organise a counter demonstration to them and we all stand their, in equal or greater numbers, with our placards and clarion calls, we aren't going to change their minds we are going to entrench them; furthering they're belief it's a simple us and them scenario. If however I show them nothing but tolerance, I can talk to them (preferably just one) and present arguments to their POV, which they may reject on the face of it, but at least its something they may not have heard before.

It's all relative, if I'm walking down the street and am confronted by intolerance I will show just how much I won't tolerate it, but if I see it on the news what difference can I make?  

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Trump is tolerant of white supremacists. You seem to be on his side in that matter.

But for clarity no, I'm not on his side any more than I'm on the side of our own bumbling buffoon.

[dimreepr]

Perhaps a better question is, should society tolerate? To which the answer is, hell yes.

As a democracy, if we don't then the intolerant doesn't get heard and my vote is not informed.

As a dictatorship, the hatred just grows until it overwhelms.

[jimmydasaint]

On 7/22/2019 at 1:30 PM, dimreepr said:

Why should I tolerate their intolerance and hatred when I can get them back, for what they've done...

On the face of it, such a seductive argument... So why, or, is it wrong?

There are some real scumbags on my estate. One of these stole my Carrera bike from my back door.  Initially, I wanted to throw a brick through the suspect's window but I rationalised that if I did not take the higher moral and rational ground, I would have become a scumbag as well. And I could not have that on my conscience.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, jimmydasaint said:

There are some real scumbags on my estate. One of these stole my Carrera bike from my back door.  Initially, I wanted to throw a brick through the suspect's window but I rationalised that if I did not take the higher moral and rational ground, I would have become a scumbag as well.

And I could not have that on my conscience.

Exactly, but I'm not sure they'd appreciate being called scumbags... good example though...

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Your example is a group of people who perceive a threat to their chosen manifestation of being, by another.

How does "making it worse for them " reduce their perception of threat? Doesn't that reinforce it?

I don't know if it reinforces it or not. I'm a white guy so I'm unsure if my voice would make them feel more threatened by blacks, or if they would just think I'm a moron.

But the implication in your message is that by making it worse for them, I hope to reduce the perception of threat to them. I don't. The goal of my opposition to them is to get them to stop their behavior in the short term. If someone is in a Starbucks harassing a person of color, by standing up to them I hope to get them to leave that person alone. Right then and there. I'm under no illusion that I can somehow get them to have a change of heart, all the while they are abusing someone with impunity.

Education and reduction of perceived threat is something I can work on in quiet times. 

10 hours ago, naitche said:

But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "force" so I'm not exactly sure how to respond. Obviously I can't beat you until you do what I want. But I can certainly take efforts to perhaps make you feel bad for not standing up to bigots for example.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 If, for instance, I decide to organise a counter demonstration to them and we all stand their, in equal or greater numbers, with our placards and clarion calls, we aren't going to change their minds we are going to entrench them; furthering they're belief it's a simple us and them scenario. If however I show them nothing but tolerance, I can talk to them (preferably just one) and present arguments to their POV, which they may reject on the face of it, but at least its something they may not have heard before.

Talking to the Klan did not result in civil rights for blacks. People don't typically give up power because you ask nicely.

Your approach is yours to follow, but if people had followed your example, blacks in the south would still have separate drinking fountains and the British would still be in India.