4 ms·

Exactly. Personal anecdote; I am not a religious person but I live in a Muslim country. A Facebook friend who is an atheist keeps making obnoxious posts about

Exactly. Personal anecdote; I am not a religious person but I live in a Muslim country. A Facebook friend who is an atheist keeps making obnoxious posts about religion; calling religious people stupid and atheists intellectuals etc. I was really tempted to honestly tell him to zip it as all of this was cringeworthy and served only to annoy people. But as I was typing a long reply I realized that this is what "tolerance" or more likely "freedom if speech" is all about; it's not "believing people can say what they want" as much as "not pointing out how annoyed they make you feel".

nkurz 10y ago
Maybe, although I'm not sure it's clear cut in your case. I don't think that tolerance necessariy requires pretending to agree. Sometimes (although not necessarily in this case) an uncomfortable private conversation is more appropriate. There's a large difference between pointing out to someone one-on-one that you don't agree, versus pointing out to "the group", who you expect to agree with you, that the individual is in the wrong.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
DigitalJack 10y ago
I have a sort of similar situation, but about politics. Does tolerance require that one subject themselves to this sort of thing? For example, I finally discovered I can ignore the shared item on facebook instead of the person sharing it. It's great, like improving the signal to noise ratio. But is that intolerant? I mean, I'm not doing anything to prevent this friend from sharing this stuff that I consider crap, so is that enough, or am I expect by tolerant society to not ignore things?
vacri 10y ago
You can still tell your friend to zip it and that he's being an arse, and not making things better. In the same vein, if someone else is lobbying the local council for something that you don't like, you don't have to stay quiet just because "freedom of speech".

nkurz 10y ago

Maybe, although I'm not sure it's clear cut in your case. I don't think that tolerance necessariy requires pretending to agree. Sometimes (although not necessarily in this case) an uncomfortable private conversation is more appropriate. There's a large difference between pointing out to someone one-on-one that you don't agree, versus pointing out to "the group", who you expect to agree with you, that the individual is in the wrong.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

DigitalJack 10y ago

I have a sort of similar situation, but about politics. Does tolerance require that one subject themselves to this sort of thing? For example, I finally discovered I can ignore the shared item on facebook instead of the person sharing it. It's great, like improving the signal to noise ratio. But is that intolerant? I mean, I'm not doing anything to prevent this friend from sharing this stuff that I consider crap, so is that enough, or am I expect by tolerant society to not ignore things?

vacri 10y ago

You can still tell your friend to zip it and that he's being an arse, and not making things better. In the same vein, if someone else is lobbying the local council for something that you don't like, you don't have to stay quiet just because "freedom of speech".