How do you stay right when faced with wrong?

[OldLady]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

 

[Compost]

I think that you have to decide whether or not part of being right is standing up against what is wrong. Along with that, you may have to decide how you define tolerance and intolerance and where your being right jibes with those definitions.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

Try neutrality. Ignore emotion when reading posts; respond without any emotion to the points in the post you wish to address.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

Dear OldLady
The Christians would say forgive first, then the words wisdom and understanding will follow,
on what to say and do to correct the problem so it is done with love.

The Buddhists would say answer anger with compassion, and
ignorance with wisdom. And this will calm the mind to focus on the right words, the right speech
to use to be more effective.

There is a wonderful group I recommend to anyone seeking to address racism in a healing way.
Look up the Center for the Healing of Racism, that teaches individuals and whole groups
how to facilitate communication to act as a healing process. It is the most effective I have found.

CHR's Guidelines for Sharing are posted here:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Their nonprofit website is here Center For The Healing Of Racism | Internalize Oneness - Home

To focus on "nonviolent communication" there are nonprofits that teach conflict resolution
and diversity management, how to diffuse volatile situations instead of escalating them.

The best advice given by a Zen Jewish Peacemaker is to always embrace
others and address them as "we" inclusively, so that any problem is mutual between "us and them"

When we own the problems together, and seek to heal and better the relations,
we have just as much work to do on our side. And that helps to influence the same in others.

Thanks for sharing your caring and concern.
We need more people like you on boards like this,
who stand to make a real difference. Thank you and Happy New Year!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

How did I get butt hurt?

Funny seeing I was responding to you and you know very well I am being civil because you have seen my writings when I am not...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

How did I get butt hurt?

Funny seeing I was responding to you and you know very well I am being civil because you have seen my writings when I am not...

I'm not going to go into some long drawn out thing on this, it's not important. I stated my opinion, don't like it the ignore is available

 

[Dhara]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It's fair to not tolerate intolerance, AND we must not give way to anger or hatred ourselves when countering it.

 

[Dhara]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

Try neutrality. Ignore emotion when reading posts; respond without any emotion to the points in the post you wish to address.

That works, so does the ignore feature. Some trolls aren't worth talking to.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

Dear SassyIrishLass Yes and no
1. Whatever we resolve locally as here between individuals
is a similar process our party leaders need to go through to solve problems as a team.
The local affects the global and vice versa. Because human beings are involved,
and we are socially interconnected (or spiritually if you will) we affect each other collectively too. These are two different levels, private vs public, but we are connected by conscience,
so whatever battles we overcome locally, then collectively when all people do that,
we change society globally, one relationship at a time.

2. Yes we should allow when someone has a bias or intolerance since we all have limits.
None of us is a machine that treats all situations as neutral factors.
We all have biases that are going to set someone else off and vice versa.

But no, there is nothing wrong with being sensitive and admitting we are angry or hurt or offended
and can't take something.

This is actually a gift to be sensitive and want to resolve a conflict that bothers our conscience.

it is not a problem, or doesn't have to be treated as one.
It is a sensor that things can be better, so why not strive for better.

It doesn't mean to censor the source of upset, it means to study the conflict on BOTH sides
and figure out how to work around the biases that are clashing. this is healthy and good.

If we teach all people to manage diversity and resolve conflicts,
we will be better off as a nation. We can only ask our party and political leaders
to be bigger people if we ourselves strive for that in our own local relations.
We set the stage, set the examples, and we can use that as LEVERAGE
to compel church and state leaders to open up and work through differences instead of shutting them out.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

How did I get butt hurt?

Funny seeing I was responding to you and you know very well I am being civil because you have seen my writings when I am not...

I'm not going to go into some long drawn out thing on this, it's not important. I stated my opinion, don't like it the ignore is available

So I was not butt hurt then...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

Dear SassyIrishLass Yes and no
1. Whatever we resolve locally as here between individuals
is a similar process our party leaders need to go through to solve problems as a team.
The local affects the global and vice versa. Because human beings are involved,
and we are socially interconnected (or spiritually if you will) we affect each other collectively too. These are two different levels, private vs public, but we are connected by conscience,
so whatever battles we overcome locally, then collectively when all people do that,
we change society globally, one relationship at a time.

2. Yes we should allow when someone has a bias or intolerance since we all have limits.
None of us is a machine that treats all situations as neutral factors.
We all have biases that are going to set someone else off and vice versa.

But no, there is nothing wrong with being sensitive and admitting we are angry or hurt or offended
and can't take something.

This is actually a gift to be sensitive and want to resolve a conflict that bothers our conscience.

it is not a problem, or doesn't have to be treated as one.
It is a sensor that things can be better, so why not strive for better.

It doesn't mean to censor the source of upset, it means to study the conflict on BOTH sides
and figure out how to work around the biases that are clashing. this is healthy and good.

If we teach all people to manage diversity and resolve conflicts,
we will be better off as a nation. We can only ask our party and political leaders
to be bigger people if we ourselves strive for that in our own local relations.
We set the stage, set the examples, and we can use that as LEVERAGE
to compel church and state leaders to open up and work through differences instead of shutting them out.

Sorry but intolerance is simply freedom of speech and or expression. Anyone needing "protection" and "safe places" needs to man up. Nobody should ever be forced to tolerate something they truly not believe in, this is America, land of freedom

 

[OldLady]

I don't like racism or homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia, etc. etc. It's a button of mine. But then I feel bad for being equally intolerant of their stance when a poster comes up with a hate filled rant. How do you tolerate intolerance? Or is it fair not to?

Try neutrality. Ignore emotion when reading posts; respond without any emotion to the points in the post you wish to address.

So much easier to say than do, but thanks.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is fair not to tolerate intolerance...

Intolerance is freedom of expression. We have an amendment for that

Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...

By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.

Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?

I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate

Dear SassyIrishLass Yes and no
1. Whatever we resolve locally as here between individuals
is a similar process our party leaders need to go through to solve problems as a team.
The local affects the global and vice versa. Because human beings are involved,
and we are socially interconnected (or spiritually if you will) we affect each other collectively too. These are two different levels, private vs public, but we are connected by conscience,
so whatever battles we overcome locally, then collectively when all people do that,
we change society globally, one relationship at a time.

2. Yes we should allow when someone has a bias or intolerance since we all have limits.
None of us is a machine that treats all situations as neutral factors.
We all have biases that are going to set someone else off and vice versa.

But no, there is nothing wrong with being sensitive and admitting we are angry or hurt or offended
and can't take something.

This is actually a gift to be sensitive and want to resolve a conflict that bothers our conscience.

it is not a problem, or doesn't have to be treated as one.
It is a sensor that things can be better, so why not strive for better.

It doesn't mean to censor the source of upset, it means to study the conflict on BOTH sides
and figure out how to work around the biases that are clashing. this is healthy and good.

If we teach all people to manage diversity and resolve conflicts,
we will be better off as a nation. We can only ask our party and political leaders
to be bigger people if we ourselves strive for that in our own local relations.
We set the stage, set the examples, and we can use that as LEVERAGE
to compel church and state leaders to open up and work through differences instead of shutting them out.

Sorry but intolerance is simply freedom of speech and or expression. Anyone needing "protection" and "safe places" needs to man up. Nobody should ever be forced to tolerate something they truly not believe in, this is America, land of freedom

Hi SassyIrishLass
Have you ever tried counseling a rape victim, a legal abuse victim, who's had all sense of control and dignity taken away?
The first step is to establish a sense of security and trust.
You don't just tell a rape victim to "man up" if they can't be around men or priests that trigger PTSD and panic attacks.
Good lord, have mercy!

I think you take for granted some people have been victimized, even if by their own devices and bad choices, to the point they don't feel safe.

You and I are secure enough to invoke authority directly ourselves.
But apparently too many others depend on bigger bullies to go fight against what they fear is oppressing them.

They aren't where you and I are with this, at all.
Look at the msgs I posted to Pogo on the Denny's thread
about people invoking equal authority for enforcing laws as govt.

Too many liberals don't get how Christians and Conservatives do that, start invoking authority directly.
It scares them. They are afraid they can never be equal, and depend on Party politics to fight that influence
they don't think they can invoke equally to defend themselves any other way!

When dealing with this "victim mentality" if you keep threatening and challenging them as hostile opposition,
you make it worse SassyIrishLass
I know you mean well, you want to stop the whole victim blame game (of projecting responsibility for change externally instead of changing internally).

But being adversarial has the opposite effect of the message you are trying to convey.
People feel safe and can receive your suggestions better
if you approach them as a peer, not an adversary, or they keep fighting even more defensively.

It is like those woven Chinese finger traps, the more you pull and struggle, you stay stuck.
But if you push TOWARD each other, gently, then this releases the mutual trap.

 

[Dhara]

Emily,

I admire your fortitude in trying to get a point across to Sassy. What I have to do during conflicts with others is to pull back enough so that my heart opens. And it's important to choose your battles wisly. Decide who is worth my efforts and good heart and who isn't. Some people you just can't get along with. We can wish them well and say goodbye.

Kudos.

Dhara

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

I admire your fortitude in trying to get a point across to Sassy. What I have to do is pull back enough so that my heart opens. And it's important to choose your battles wisly. Decide who is worth it and who isn't.

Kudos.

Dhara

Hi Dhara I usually try different angles till the other person says yes or no. Trial and error. I can't read minds, but I learn with each person who requires saying it a different way to make sense to both of us.

As for trolls, I see those as an exercise and a challenge.
To figure out what is really going on and try to communicate to that point.
They either run away or they show their cards and leak what is really their core issue.

If I can get the toughest case to open up and explain what works and doesn't,
that makes it easier when I run into similar. We both help each other understand a new viewpoint.

If they give up first and run away, I can't help that.
I can just ensure I'm not the one running away from an opportunity to learn from
someone who thinks totally different from me, so I have that much more to learn.

 

[Dhara]

You know, I'm thinking that some people are fun to fight with. When I think of those folks who are, they have a common quality of taking themselves and their anger lightly.

Not everyone is capable of doing that.