How do you stay right when faced with wrong?

[Dhara]

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.

You make many really good points. I guess if it's possible to just get curious and interested when hitting a bad sticking point with someone and to have a light heart with arguments, then it's enjoyable.

Too often I've wasted so much time in action/reaction with political opponents who make every conversation personal.

 

[Compost]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

 

[OldLady]

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

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

No, intolerance isn't freedom of speech. It is:

in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

1. unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
   "a struggle against religious intolerance"
   synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, illiberality, parochialism, provincialism;More
   prejudice, bias, partisanship, partiality, discrimination;
   injustice, inequality
   "clearly she had not inherited her parents' racial intolerance"
   

My OP is not about you. No one wants to take your freedom away.

 

[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.

You make many really good points. I guess if it's possible to just get curious and interested when hitting a bad sticking point with someone and to have a light heart with arguments, then it's enjoyable.

Too often I've wasted so much time in action/reaction with political opponents who make every conversation personal.

Thanks Dhara I notice you are able to do both, make political points but also stay very personable.
I think that is important and effective.
I think we need to be able to talk personally in order to deal with the religion and politics.
Of course it's going to affect us deeply and personally, because its our core beliefs that make us
who we are, our cultural and spiritual identity. There's no way to get around that.

What you have is the ability to connect personally and then also hash out specific political points.
How ARE we going to write out legislation so it is specific and doesn't get sidetracked personally?
We need to be specific, and can't just let personal issues get in the way, true.

I think it takes using both levels. You have that, so I would say to develop that
connection with more people. And the rest will follow. Not to worry, it will get personal,
people will use these boards to vent, and that is an inevitable part of the resolution process.
We take the good with the bad, the anger and denial as part of the same grieving process we all go through.
We can't get away from the fact we are human and this is going to touch us personally.

Thank you for being here, Happy New Year
and I look forward to reading your msgs
and seeing your successes in the future.

 

[OldLady]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

 

[Compost]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

I just hope you aren't turned off from this forum by all the high fives going on... Hope to see you again.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

Dear OldLady:

This board has a flame and taunt zone for that. So you can vent when you need to.
You are expected to slap each other around verbally when you respond to those threads,
to get the angst and pressure out. Then you can go back to being your diplomatic self!

Or call someone in the Bullring if they really say something that is unjustifiable and can be proven false. When I get fed up I call people out, and it seems to let off that extra steam even if they never respond. They at least take me seriously when I say that's false, I'm even willing to prove it.

No one here is without some issue that can set us off on a rant.

Maybe the Dalai Lama can just smile and remain silent, but when asked
can he really have compassion and not think angry thoughts at what the Chinese have done.
He smiled and said: It is very very hard. he even admitted he can't always do that either.

We have to forgive ourselves if we are going to be able to forgive others.
These boards and online forums are good exercise in learning to let go and focus.
So use them to practice, and nobody expects anyone to be perfect. Let go of that, too.

 

[OldLady]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

I just hope you aren't turned off from this forum by all the high fives going on... Hope to see you again.

What high fives? Who's high fiving? What happened?

 

[OldLady]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

This board has a flame and taunt zone for that. So you can vent when you need to.
Or call someone in the Bullring if they really say something that is unjustifiable and can be proven false.

No one here is without some issue that can set us off on a rant.
Maybe the Dalai Lama can just smile and remain silent, but when asked
can he really have compassion and not think angry thoughts at what the Chinese have done.
He smiled and said: It is very very hard.
he even admitted he can't always do that either.

We have to forgive ourselves if we are going to be able to forgive others.

I would never pull a full rant or go to the Flame Zone, but I am going to remember what you said about the Dalai Lama. Thanks.

 

[Compost]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

I just hope you aren't turned off from this forum by all the high fives going on... Hope to see you again.

What high fives? Who's high fiving? What happened?

There was some back and forth over "political" points scored and whatnot. It seemed to me hard to miss. Sorry. I thought maybe, based on the way you worded your OP, that you'd feel like your thread was hijacked. Evidently, I am in error.

Good luck, OldLady.

 

[Dhara]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

The fact that you even ask the OP question and acknowledge how hard it is to "not fling back the sh--" puts you way ahead of the game. We're all human, what we'd all like is to come from our highest potential each day.

I think if you pay attention most to when you've responded from a good place you tend to get more of it.

A resolution I've made is to follow the people who are working hard to get along with everyone here and ignore the ones whose posts are so inflammatory that I find myself getting angry with them.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

No, intolerance isn't freedom of speech. It is:

in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

1. unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
   "a struggle against religious intolerance"
   synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, illiberality, parochialism, provincialism;More
   prejudice, bias, partisanship, partiality, discrimination;
   injustice, inequality
   "clearly she had not inherited her parents' racial intolerance"

My OP is not about you. No one wants to take your freedom away.

Dear OldLady Thanks again for being here and sharing openly with the best intent.
I am sure you will succeed. Because I see you are sensitive, I trust you to see the other
person is just as sensitive to hot button issues that mean something personal to them.

RE No one wants to take your freedom away.

I am going to respond to this "in general" and point out this is a hot button issue.
Trying to deny or downplay this very real fear, is more likely going to set someone off worse, just like you admit certain statements rub you wrong.

If you can understand this, and why it matters so personally to someone, then you can see
the fearful reaction is mutual. Perhaps you won't feel as helpless, when you understand the other person is just as fearful you are out to discriminate, exclude and oppress what they need to represent themselves. They feel just as at risk of oppression as you feel threatened by "collective" phobic influences manifested in race baiting remarks.

This "fear that someone wants to take their freedom away" is real.
Trying to downplay that makes the defensiveness worse.
So I am asking you to try to be as sensitive as you are asking others to be,
when they don't think the other opinion is founded either!

Examples of taking freedom away in general (that conservatives get outraged
about but liberals don't think is any big deal, which makes it even worse):

1. Let's look at lawsuits over crosses and prayers in schools or on public grounds vs. other issues.

This issue was brought up on numerous threads comparing it with
a. why are "gay parades" allowed on public streets when this is pushing agenda and values
b. why is "health care" pushed as a right and requirement through govt but not "right to life" as a belief
if atheists can sue to remove a cross when nothing was being imposed, but the SYMBOL was offensive
and excluded their beliefs, why not REMOVE the insurance mandates that SYMBOLIZES the belief
that health care is a right through govt that EXCLUDES and penalized creeds that are against federal controls
as against Constitutional beliefs in states rights and amendments voted on before giving feds that authority
c. why are schools supposed to be tolerant of gays and transgender "to show respect and inclusion of diversity" but this is NOT applied to Christian culture, that is pushed out and shut down because "not all people believe that". well, not all people believe that gay and transgender is natural, that is "faith based" and not proven, one way or another, so why push this agenda that is faith based but Christianity is lobbied against (even references to Christmas trees).

This adds to the fear that the liberal agenda is aimed at shutting down beliefs in opposition while spouting their own, thus "taking away religious freedom and equality" by only enforcing a one sided bias by liberal agenda and secular standards, a very real fear.

2. In general, liberal backlash over public comments and criticisms as "racist"
where this "race card" is used to attack candidates for office "so they can't win" and the other side gains points.

Instead of correcting the statement, the PERSON is attacked to censor or obstruct them politically
If the race card is only used politically to undercut and DESTROY opponents, and get other elected by bashing
each other, it is not really addressing or correcting the problem, but tends to make it worse.

So this is "taking away" from freedom of both sides to work together on solutions by instead,
"rewarding bullying", by reinforcing barriers, even fueling the same cycle of racial distrust and division between groups.

We all lose freedom this way when we obstruct and destroy our own relations with each other.

This fear is real and mutual on both sides.
When this is understood, we can address the fear instead of telling ourselves the other side is unfounded.

 

[Agit8r]

Being intolerant of intolerance is seldom wrong.

 

[HaShev]

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...

However, doing so through use of provable rational truth and knowledge and sources and not mirroring hatred through use of animosity and ad hominom attacks or inflictive responses.
Using insightful humor doesn't hurt either, especially if it makes their points look silly and embarasses them into change..

 

[OldLady]

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

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

No, intolerance isn't freedom of speech. It is:

in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

1. unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
   "a struggle against religious intolerance"
   synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, illiberality, parochialism, provincialism;More
   prejudice, bias, partisanship, partiality, discrimination;
   injustice, inequality
   "clearly she had not inherited her parents' racial intolerance"

My OP is not about you. No one wants to take your freedom away.

Dear OldLady Thanks again for being here and sharing openly with the best intent.
I am sure you will succeed. Because I see you are sensitive, I trust you to see the other
person is just as sensitive to hot button issues that mean something personal to them.

RE No one wants to take your freedom away.

I am going to respond to this "in general" and point out this is a hot button issue.
Trying to deny or downplay this very real fear, is more likely going to set someone off worse, just like you admit certain statements rub you wrong.

If you can understand this, and why it matters so personally to someone, then you can see
the fearful reaction is mutual. Perhaps you won't feel as helpless, when you understand the other person is just as fearful you are out to discriminate, exclude and oppress what they need to represent themselves. They feel just as at risk of oppression as you feel threatened by "collective" phobic influences manifested in race baiting remarks.

This "fear that someone wants to take their freedom away" is real.
Trying to downplay that makes the defensiveness worse.
So I am asking you to try to be as sensitive as you are asking others to be,
when they don't think the other opinion is founded either!

Examples of taking freedom away in general (that conservatives get outraged
about but liberals don't think is any big deal, which makes it even worse):

1. Let's look at lawsuits over crosses and prayers in schools or on public grounds vs. other issues.

This issue was brought up on numerous threads comparing it with
a. why are "gay parades" allowed on public streets when this is pushing agenda and values
b. why is "health care" pushed as a right and requirement through govt but not "right to life" as a belief
if atheists can sue to remove a cross when nothing was being imposed, but the SYMBOL was offensive
and excluded their beliefs, why not REMOVE the insurance mandates that SYMBOLIZES the belief
that health care is a right through govt that EXCLUDES and penalized creeds that are against federal controls
as against Constitutional beliefs in states rights and amendments voted on before giving feds that authority
c. why are schools supposed to be tolerant of gays and transgender "to show respect and inclusion of diversity" but this is NOT applied to Christian culture, that is pushed out and shut down because "not all people believe that". well, not all people believe that gay and transgender is natural, that is "faith based" and not proven, one way or another, so why push this agenda that is faith based but Christianity is lobbied against (even references to Christmas trees).

This adds to the fear that the liberal agenda is aimed at shutting down beliefs in opposition while spouting their own, thus "taking away religious freedom and equality" by only enforcing a one sided bias by liberal agenda and secular standards, a very real fear.

2. In general, liberal backlash over public comments and criticisms as "racist"
where this "race card" is used to attack candidates for office "so they can't win" and the other side gains points.

Instead of correcting the statement, the PERSON is attacked to censor or obstruct them politically
If the race card is only used politically to undercut and DESTROY opponents, and get other elected by bashing
each other, it is not really addressing or correcting the problem, but tends to make it worse.

So this is "taking away" from freedom of both sides to work together on solutions by instead,
"rewarding bullying", by reinforcing barriers, even fueling the same cycle of racial distrust and division between groups.

We all lose freedom this way when we obstruct and destroy our own relations with each other.

This fear is real and mutual on both sides.
When this is understood, we can address the fear instead of telling ourselves the other side is unfounded.

Emily, I meant literally what I said: This OP was not about political left/right or even politics. That's why I posted it here, on a forum about right and wrong. I didn't intend to be rude in the least to Sassy, and to be honest, I respect her as a strong woman who holds her ground and cares for her children, though we seldom agree on anything. I don't hold any grudges against her. I appreciate the additional insight into some of our more reactive posters, it's always good to be reminded they are as charged up as I am. Thanks!

 

[OldLady]

I'm wondering if the OP has any other thoughts at this time.

I appreciate the input from those of you who understood what I was trying to ask. It's really difficult work for me not flinging back the sh--; I'm no Mother Theresa. I'll keep trying and will remember all your advice. Thanks.

I just hope you aren't turned off from this forum by all the high fives going on... Hope to see you again.

What high fives? Who's high fiving? What happened?

There was some back and forth over "political" points scored and whatnot. It seemed to me hard to miss. Sorry. I thought maybe, based on the way you worded your OP, that you'd feel like your thread was hijacked. Evidently, I am in error.

Good luck, OldLady.

I'm used to getting hijacked. No place here is free of those who disagree. It didn't bother me. Thanks for the concern, though.