Why tolerate?

[dimreepr]

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?

Edited July 22, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Personal health. Holding on to anger hurts oneself, not the subject of the anger. 

‘Another angle is that once you act to “get them back” you are no better than they are, lose the high ground, and will often become yourself the very thing you despised so much in them. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Personal health. Holding on to anger hurts oneself, not the subject of the anger. 

‘Another angle is that once you act to “get them back” you are no better than they are, lose the high ground, and will often become yourself the very thing you despised so much in them. 

Indeed, but what's your take on this.

[Phi for All]

Personal opportunity. Every individual you tolerate and cooperate and communicate with represents chances for advancement in multiple areas. The people you can't tolerate are lost chances to prosper. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The people you can't tolerate are lost chances to prosper. 

What if their prosperity out-strips yours?

[Sensei]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

...the spiral of hatred increases, the tension increases, it grows to the point when escalation can lead to physical fight and murder..

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

...the spiral of hatred increases, the tension increases, it grows to the point when escalation can lead to physical fight and murder..

 

Is it murder if I'm the one defending?

Despite my role in the tension increase?

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but what's your take on this.

That it's an unfortunate consequence of semantics. We can hold tolerance as a core value underlying our actions and decisions, and by doing so seek to minimize or eliminate all things which strike against that value.

That's not being intolerant of intolerance. It's being consistent and firm in the value itself.

I acknowledge it's an odd juxtaposition, though, and IMO the issue of being intolerant of intolerance and whether or not this presents an underlying fault line to one who advocates tolerance as a core value depends largely on how one enforces the core value /rejects those who are intolerant.

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.

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if their prosperity out-strips yours?

Envy is a possible outcome of intolerance, but my point was more about limiting your own possibilities because you've chosen not to deal with a certain person or group of people. 

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, 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?

Is there no way to extricate yourself from this situation?  Walk away?

Revenge is a tricky road.  Freedom is better, no?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[Danijel Gorupec]

2 hours ago, 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?

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.

[OldChemE]

7 hours ago, 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?

I think there is a careful distinction to be made.  "getting back" at some one can lead to a bad situation, and anger that cold hurt you.  One the other hand, if the person showing intolerance and hatred can be made to experience the logical consequences of their behavior, benefit can result.  This is much the same situation as crime and punishment.  The legal punishments established for certain crimes are (in theory at least) balanced by the severity of the crime-- and are fair.  Revenge, on the other hand, is not considered right.  When I was teaching it was not uncommon for individual students to behave badly toward others on occasion.  As a Teacher, I did not let the students "get back" at the individual, but I did apply school-sanctioned punishments, so that the intolerant student experienced consequences that were clearly connected to their behavior.

[zapatos]

While I don't disagree that the non-violent, legal approaches are always your first option, sometimes a physical response works best. Bullies for example cannot always be controlled and standing up to them, even to the point of violence, can solve the problem. 

I don't see much benefit in "getting back", but taking action to stop continued bad behavior sometimes requires violence. 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

While I don't disagree that the non-violent, legal approaches are always your first option, sometimes a physical response works best. Bullies for example cannot always be controlled and standing up to them, even to the point of violence, can solve the problem. 

I don't see much benefit in "getting back", but taking action to stop continued bad behavior sometimes requires violence. 

And there in lies the paradox and the answer, I can tolerate a bully because I can understand his/her journey and I can defend against his/her attack; but I can't defeat bullies unless I tolerate them.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I can't defeat bullies unless I tolerate them.

Sure you can. Defeating a bully means stopping their physical manipulations, which don't have to be tolerated. In fact, if you "tolerate" the bully's behavior, you encourage it. 

Standing up to bullies is the opposite of tolerance, and some things are better NOT tolerated. Racism is another example. 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Sure you can. Defeating a bully means stopping their physical manipulations, which don't have to be tolerated. In fact, if you "tolerate" the bully's behavior, you encourage it. 

Standing up to bullies is the opposite of tolerance, and some things are better NOT tolerated. Racism is another example. 

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.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Sure you can. Defeating a bully means stopping their physical manipulations, which don't have to be tolerated. In fact, if you "tolerate" the bully's behavior, you encourage it. 

Standing up to bullies is the opposite of tolerance, and some things are better NOT tolerated. Racism is another example. 

Did we stop the bullies when we defeated Mr Hitler or did we invite Mr Stalin to replace him?

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Did we stop the bullies when we defeated Mr Hitler or did we invite Mr Stalin to replace him?

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.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Did we stop the bullies when we defeated Mr Hitler or did we invite Mr Stalin to replace him?

As zapatos points out, the bullies one should stand up to aren't acting as one. It's only when you tolerate them too long that they find others like themselves, team up, move in lockstep, and get stronger. 

Be tolerant of people, but not of all their behavior. Bullying and discrimination are bad, don't tolerate them, speak out, stand up, do something. 

[MigL]

Violence is a totally different subject, and no-one should be expected to tolerate it.

But if we are talking ideas and views people may have, I would tolerate anyone's OPINION, but will certainly not tolerate wrong FACTS.
( though sometimes, people's ideas/views can be considered emotional violence )

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Violence is a totally different subject, and no-one should be expected to tolerate it.

But if we are talking ideas and views people may have, I would tolerate anyone's OPINION, but will certainly not tolerate wrong FACTS.
( though sometimes, people's ideas/views can be considered emotional violence )

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

[MigL]

I believe people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even if discriminatory.
Acting on those beliefs is different, and against the law.
Inciting violence against others certainly is.

There are as many opinions as there are people on this world.
If everyone was offended by everyone else's opinions, there wouldn't be much discussion.
Then how would I pass the time at work ?

[zapatos]

I also believe everyone should be allowed to believe what they want or to be total jerks.

But let's say we have a leader of a country who expresses an opinion in a round about way that he doesn't particularly care for certain minorities or immigrants.

He doesn't 'tell' anyone to bring violence or verbal abuse on those people, he is just expressing his opinion on what he thinks of those groups.

But people being people, some of the jerks start abusing members of these groups, either verbal abuse, refusal of service, or in some cases violence.

Would you still tolerate that world leader's expression of his opinions? 

[MigL]

What are your options ?
Destroy the institution of US Presidency because this one happens to be a jerk ?

There have been plenty of jerks in recent history who led countries we went to war against ( A Hitler and B Mussolini ), while others were tolerated ( J Stalin, V Putin, and most of the Russian leaders from the 50s to the 80s,  Mao Zedong and subsequent Chinese leaders, including present day Hong Kong, the North Korean Kim dynasty, Canbodia's Pol Pot, Turkey's Recep Erdogan, and quite a few South/Central American dictators ).

If you don't tolerate these leaders, what do you suggest doing about it ?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

What are your options ?
Destroy the institution of US Presidency because this one happens to be a jerk ?

Yes, that's what I had in mind.