Because I’m not insecure, nor do i feel unworthy. If people disagree in my worth, that’s their issue, and again, it reconfirms the concept that they are insane
Real scenario: You made this post saying that if people disagree with you, they are insane.
Ideal scenario: You realise that everybody is unique, entitled to their views, and you try to empathise with their point of view while pursuing your own goals that are not mutually exclusive to theirs. You also realise that, to everyone you think is insane for disagreeing with you, if the disagreement is that great, you are also insane to them. You realise that, like in your examples above which I’m copying this reply’s format from, this disagreement not only harms neither of you, but does not have to be a barrier which restricts you from helping one another to accomplish those same not mutually exclusive goals.
The ideal is a very liberal one, tolerance of all views. I do think it begins to be a problem where tolerance in of itself is in conflict. There does need a “do not harm others” baseline before tolerance. For example, I just had a conversation the other day about “armed groups” where the other person was in favor of militarizing against oppression, which is an intolerant position (War and warmongering is intolerance.) If my opinion is that I want you dead, it’s not an opinion or a view but an incitement to violence.
Because it has massive implications. When I leave my house, I encounter people and i can’t treat them equally. I have to be cogizent that they are batshit insane. I’m using colorful language for effect, and i recognize it’s ableist. I mean more-so that they aren’t’ rational or intellectually honest. However, it’s deeper than that because even when I’m home, i can’t engage with people online either because they are the same people ahahaha. So I’m naming my cat “realty” so i can pay attention to reality or maybe “Clarity” because there is truth in love (such as petcare), and truth is clear.
Because I’m not insecure, nor do i feel unworthy. If people disagree in my worth, that’s their issue, and again, it reconfirms the concept that they are insane
Real scenario: You made this post saying that if people disagree with you, they are insane.
Ideal scenario: You realise that everybody is unique, entitled to their views, and you try to empathise with their point of view while pursuing your own goals that are not mutually exclusive to theirs. You also realise that, to everyone you think is insane for disagreeing with you, if the disagreement is that great, you are also insane to them. You realise that, like in your examples above which I’m copying this reply’s format from, this disagreement not only harms neither of you, but does not have to be a barrier which restricts you from helping one another to accomplish those same not mutually exclusive goals.
The ideal is a very liberal one, tolerance of all views. I do think it begins to be a problem where tolerance in of itself is in conflict. There does need a “do not harm others” baseline before tolerance. For example, I just had a conversation the other day about “armed groups” where the other person was in favor of militarizing against oppression, which is an intolerant position (War and warmongering is intolerance.) If my opinion is that I want you dead, it’s not an opinion or a view but an incitement to violence.
No no, I mean why did you think it was interesting?
Because it has massive implications. When I leave my house, I encounter people and i can’t treat them equally. I have to be cogizent that they are batshit insane. I’m using colorful language for effect, and i recognize it’s ableist. I mean more-so that they aren’t’ rational or intellectually honest. However, it’s deeper than that because even when I’m home, i can’t engage with people online either because they are the same people ahahaha. So I’m naming my cat “realty” so i can pay attention to reality or maybe “Clarity” because there is truth in love (such as petcare), and truth is clear.