I Find It Hard to be Friendly with People With Opposing Views....

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I do have an issue getting along with closed-minded, judgmental people.

I have heard this a lot recently... from some REALLY close-minded, judgmental people.

In all seriousness, this is just more complicated than some would suggest. Many people have a very difficult time even talking to people they disagree with politically. We've gone past just saying "I disagree with you, I think you're wrong", to "I disagree with you, you're wrong, and you're therefore clearly and objectively a horrible human being". It's really unfortunate.

 

[mom2rtk]

I have heard this a lot recently... from some REALLY close-minded, judgmental people.

In all seriousness, this is just more complicated than some would suggest. Many people have a very difficult time even talking to people they disagree with politically. We've gone past just saying "I disagree with you, I think you're wrong", to "I disagree with you, you're wrong, and you're therefore clearly and objectively a horrible human being". It's really unfortunate.

That about covers it. And that last step (to the "I disagree so you are a terrible person" step) was huge.

 

[because]

Who said anything about remaining quiet? Talk about hyperbole.
If you can't even be friendly to those with opposing views then that is the very definition of being intolerant. It means you can't accept those that are different than you to the point that you can't even be friendly with them.
Now if the OP comes back and chooses to elaborate and says she was walking in the park and there were a group on neo-nazi's protesting and she couldn't smile and wish them a good day I think we can understand.
Or if she was walking in to the school to cast her vote and a group of people were out there telling her she was an X for voting for Y, I can understand. However that isn't what she said, she made a general statement about people with opposing views, and that could mean 1000 different things.

I do find it fascinating that people can just automatically blow off the possibility of a friendship with someone because they think differently about them on certain issues. It really does say alot about you even if you don't think it does.

Nobody, absolutely nobody you are quoting, is saying they cannot be friends with people of opposing views. In fact, they are saying exactly the opposite. They are saying they can be friendly with people who have opposing views. Are you missing those parts of the posts?

What they (and me) will not tolerate is the ACT of trying to limit someone else's rights because they have a different view. That is intolerance. Trying to curb someone's rights and choices because "you" don't agree with their moral choices is intolerance.

You never did answer if you would be fast friends with someone who was actively campaigning to make medical procedures mandatory for not perfect babies. Would you?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What they (and me) will not tolerate is the ACT of trying to limit someone else's rights because they have a different view. That is intolerance.

So, does that apply to ALL rights, or just the ones you most value?

 

[because]

So, does that apply to ALL rights, or just the ones you most value?

Anything that limits or takes another person's right to choose for themself because another person does not believe in it. It doesn't matter what side.

For instance, the definition of "C" upthread is a moral opinion which differs between people depending on their scientific and religious beliefs. Everyone should respect each other's view of C, but nobody should force their view down anyone else's throat.

Just as in my example of Iceland. The country has decided that having three chromosomes instead of 2 is bad. They have not made law yet to force abortion of babies with a trisomy but have applied pressure enough pressure that they have virtually eradicated the birth of babies with Ds. However, people still have the will to choose to continue with the pregnancy if they feel a child with a disability is fine for them.

I would be friends with any Icelander that believes Ds is bad and would not make the decision for themselves to have a baby with special needs. I know plenty of people here that have made that same decision and while I find it awful, I fully support their right to make that choice for themselves. The caveat would be that this person does not pressure strangers to make the same decision they would. I would certainly oppose anyone in Iceland that would be taking it a step further and vociferously calling for the eradication of all babies with special needs by crafting or voting for a law making it illegal to have a baby with special needs. It is actions not moral convictions that are my line in the sand.

I am not going to continue because then we are stepping into forbidden territory of discussing religion and this discussion has creeped toward the morals of abortion using vague references rather than whether you can be a friend of someone who thinks differently than you do.

 

[OhhBother]

I can be and am friends with plenty of people whose views differ from mine (I'm a blue-minded girl living in a deep red state). My only criterion is that a person know WHY he/she believes something. I can respect a person whose views are diametrically opposed to mine. But I have no respect for anyone on either side of the spectrum who is just parroting something he/she read on social media or saw on a news program.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

A-freaking-men. Tolerance does not extend to condoning the acts of others who seek to limit civil and other rights. Tolerance means I accept that they have a right to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, or whatever. It does not mean that I have to be quiet when they attempt to impose their thinking on others. For example, I accept that people have the right to disapprove of same-sex marriage, even though I abhor that opinion. I do not accept that that gives them the right to discriminate against homosexual couples as it pertains to their legal rights.

Another amen here. If I am to be considered closed-minded/intolerant because I don’t want to be friendly or associate with neo-Nazis, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, then so be it. I don’t need those kinds of people in my life. Not sure why people have a problem with this?

There are issues that can be debated upon (econonics, immigration policy, gun control, social spending, etc.) that I’m sure I don’t see eye-to-eye with some of my friends on. I absolutely think it’s important to share ideas and debate. But if you hate a person/think you’re better than them simply because of the color of their skin, the people they love, the country they’re from, or the religion they practice, I have nothing to learn from you.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Who said anything about remaining quiet? Talk about hyperbole.
If you can't even be friendly to those with opposing views then that is the very definition of being intolerant. It means you can't accept those that are different than you to the point that you can't even be friendly with them.

Do you know that the phrase "remaining quiet" can be taken in a broader sense?

And where did I say anything about not being friendly with those with opposing viewpoints? Talk about hyperbole. In fact, in my initial post on this thread I said I can't understand living like that.

My post was about the "new" definition of tolerance that some people desire. It had nothing to do with being friendly or not.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

My post was about the "new" definition of tolerance that some people desire. It had nothing to do with being friendly or not.

Would this new definition of tolerance cover people who have said these exact words to me: "I cannot tolerate anyone who voted for X -- I just can't stand to be in the same room with them -- they don't deserve to breathe the same air"?

This is of course because X has said things that they think makes a person all kinds of "-ists". So by extension, anyone who voted for them is the same.

Even assume they are correct about X, is that covered by this new definition of tolerance? Or is that "guilt by association"? I'm wondering how far you feel this extends, I suppose.

 

[because]

Would this new definition of tolerance cover people who have said these exact words to me: "I cannot tolerate anyone who voted for X -- I just can't stand to be in the same room with them -- they don't deserve to breathe the same air"?

This is of course because X has said things that they think makes a person all kinds of "-ists". So by extension, anyone who voted for them is the same.

Even assume they are correct about X, is that covered by this new definition of tolerance? Or is that "guilt by association"? I'm wondering how far you feel this extends, I suppose.

How do people know who you voted for to be able to say that to you?

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

How do people know who you voted for to be able to say that to you?

Where I live, they assume. Area goes 93%+ for one party in every election.

And if they already know and like you, they assume you can't possibly be one of THEM.

Incidentally, I consider myself in the middle politically -- have voted for both parties and will likely continue to depending on what I feel are the most pressing issues of the day, specific candidates, etc. But the assumption people make is always quite something, to me. And the judgmental tone... jarring.

 

[LSUmiss]

@because not really going to continue this. All I will say it is very apparent in this thread who the intolerant are.
Not being able to be friendly or be friends with someone because they vote X says it loud and clear. If you can't manage to respect the fact that people feel differently than you and can't be friends with them because of it, it is you.

It’s not that simple. Being cordial is one thing. But not being able to be friends with someone you feel believes in something you are morally opposed to makes sense. Just take racism as an example...if one is morally opposed to racism, it would be extremely difficult to be friends with someone who constantly does & says racist things. Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing.

 

[LSUmiss]

Another amen here. If I am to be considered closed-minded/intolerant because I don’t want to be friendly or associate with neo-Nazis, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, then so be it. I don’t need those kinds of people in my life. Not sure why people have a problem with this?

There are issues that can be debated upon (econonics, immigration policy, gun control, social spending, etc.) that I’m sure I don’t see eye-to-eye with some of my friends on. I absolutely think it’s important to share ideas and debate. But if you hate a person/think you’re better than them simply because of the color of their skin, the people they love, the country they’re from, or the religion they practice, I have nothing to learn from you.

I feel like this is part of why things have become so “polarizing” lately. It’s no longer about the second group of “political” type topics you listed but about the first list you mentioned. When did those things become debatable??! When things have to do with morals/values/ethics some of us feel there is less room for negotiation. I can be friendly & can even be be friends with someone in that list IF they don’t rant about it or behave in a way that they exhibit those things in front of me. I don’t need to know everyone’s personal private beliefs, but, if you put all that in the open, I won’t deal with you. I will tolerate only what is socially appropriate depending on the setting (eg work), but, I will absolutely judge you & won’t want to be your “friend”.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It’s not that simple. Being cordial is one thing. But not being able to be friends with someone you feel believes in something you are morally opposed to makes sense. Just take racism as an example...if one is morally opposed to racism, it would be extremely difficult to be friends with someone who constantly does & says racist things. Being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing.

The point missed is this trend to paint anyone who even slightly disagrees with you as a (insert bigoted title here). And now that they've been panted as a racist, homophobe, etc, now it's no longer necessary to "tolerate" someone. Nobody says you need to be friends with the tiny fraction of the population that actively supports the KKK. Just don't lump everyone who has an alternative view on race relations in with said group.

There's no new definition of tolerance. There IS a new definition of bigotry.

It's important also to maintain a dialogue with reasonable people who may find themselves on the opposite side of things, because as time goes on these people may change positions if given the chance. Remember, it was less than 10 years ago when Californians voted to ban gay marriage.

 

[LSUmiss]

The point missed is this trend to paint anyone who even slightly disagrees with you as a (insert bigoted title here). And now that they've been panted as a racist, homophobe, etc, now it's no longer necessary to "tolerate" someone. Nobody says you need to be friends with the tiny fraction of the population that actively supports the KKK. Just don't lump everyone who has an alternative view on race relations in with said group.

There's no new definition of tolerance. There IS a new definition of bigotry.

It's important also to maintain a dialogue with reasonable people who may find themselves on the opposite side of things, because as time goes on these people may change positions if given the chance. Remember, it was less than 10 years ago when Californians voted to ban gay marriage.

But that’s part of the problem. The KKK is an extreme example of racism that most ppl can agree on. However, I have watched ppl say & do very racist & discriminatory things who claim not to be racist b/c they don’t view themselves as such b/c they’ve rationalized their behavior. Of course, actions speak louder than words so it doesn’t matter what they claim.

 

[L&Lfan]

Another amen here. If I am to be considered closed-minded/intolerant because I don’t want to be friendly or associate with neo-Nazis, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, then so be it. I don’t need those kinds of people in my life. Not sure why people have a problem with this?

There are issues that can be debated upon (econonics, immigration policy, gun control, social spending, etc.) that I’m sure I don’t see eye-to-eye with some of my friends on. I absolutely think it’s important to share ideas and debate. But if you hate a person/think you’re better than them simply because of the color of their skin, the people they love, the country they’re from, or the religion they practice, I have nothing to learn from you.

Many people practice a religion whose tenets forbid some of the things you indicate you support. Would you be allowed to be intolerant or discriminate against a person who follows that religion in that case? I'm sincerely curious. And I'm thinking specifically of those whose religions have moral issues with such things as abortion, sex outside of marriage, the death penalty, etc,

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But that’s part of the problem. The KKK is an extreme example of racism that most ppl can agree on. However, I have watched ppl say & do very racist & discriminatory things who claim not to be racist b/c they don’t view themselves as such b/c they’ve rationalized their behavior. Of course, actions speak louder than words so it doesn’t matter what they claim.

I don't disagree that actions speak louder than words, but it's also true people screaming "racism" (or whatever) without justification has become a very real trend.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

I don't disagree that actions speak louder than words, but it's also true people screaming "racism" (or whatever) without justification has become a very real trend.

Or perhaps more light is being shed on what is classified as racism; I think a lot of institutionalized, internalized racism is coming to the surface and perhaps some people now are having a hard time taking a good hard look at themselves.

 

[LSUmiss]

I don't disagree that actions speak louder than words, but it's also true people screaming "racism" (or whatever) without justification has become a very real trend.

I agree. Sometimes ppl are expecting it so they see it when it’s not there.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

Many people practice a religion whose tenets forbid some of the things you indicate you support. Would you be allowed to be intolerant or discriminate against a person who follows that religion in that case? I'm sincerely curious. And I'm thinking specifically of those whose religions have moral issues with such things as abortion, sex outside of marriage, the death penalty, etc,

Can you clarify a bit? Are you asking would I be intolerant of someone having certain beliefs due to their faith? All I’m saying is I don’t associate with people who are hateful, no matter what their background is. I’m sure my definition of hateful is not the same (or stricter) than others... but it is what it is.