Tolerance

[Coops]

I forget where I first saw this but I like it anyway. " You shouldn't have to put somebody else's candle out just to make yours seem brighter." This does seem to be the modus operandi for a minority of posters.

Coops.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

Sorry, if this post is not very readable - this time I had really the language problems, my English is just not rich enough to reflect my feelings.

I think your English is pretty danged good!

B is using the word Tolerance, and it is a good word, but it does not quite encompass what we are talking about or at least what I am thinking. I guess my English is not rich enough to reflect my feelings.

Lets say Joe likes Green Boats but Jill likes Blue Boats and deep down inside, Joe HATES Blue Boats.

If Jill and Joe are talking to each other on the dock, Joe might say he likes Green Boats and Jill might reply that she likes Blue Boats. It is doubtful that Joe will say he HATES Blue Boats to Jill's face. That would be rude and most people would never be that rude face to face. Key word most.

On the Internet, Joe would not only tell Jill that Blue Boats Bite, and that they should be Banned, but that anyone owning a Blue Boat is an idiot, stupid, should not breed, and should go to jail. Joe would be outrageously rude and intolerant. He would be a Dilloway.

In reality, Joe would then start a movement to get all Blue Boats Banned, create a website, bumper stickers and T shirts.

I am actually seeing this in my rural county at the moment. Well, the person has not created a website, bumper stickers or T shirts but they are trying to get something banned because they don't like it, even though it is perfectly legal.

What I do find interesting/sad is that DoubleWhisky sees the same issues in his part of the world.

Later,
Dan

[Mike OReilly]

There's nothing new under the sun. There are intolerant, close-minded, self-absorbed people everywhere. The reason we see more of them in online forums like this is b/c the cost of being a dick is very low. Most of the social conventions that have evolved to keep people in line simply don't operate very well online. And this is especially true when participants are anonymous.

The phenomena can easily be seen in the real world when you compare small town life to big city. People generally behave better to each other in small towns, not b/c they are better people, but simply b/c the cost of bad behaviour is higher. Crude and rude people get shamed and ostracized pretty quickly in small communities. Why? Because you can't hide behind the anonymity of the crowd. It operates in big cities vs small towns, and it's magnified many-fold online where everyone is anonymous.

I've argued for real names here. I don't think it would erase poor behaviour, but research suggests it would improve it.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Coops

I forget where I first saw this but I like it anyway. " You shouldn't have to put somebody else's candle out just to make yours seem brighter." This does seem to be the modus operandi for a minority of posters.

Coops.

Similar quote: You never raise yourself up by putting someone else down.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

T
The phenomena can easily be seen in the real world when you compare small town life to big city. People generally behave better to each other in small towns, not b/c they are better people, but simply b/c the cost of bad behaviour is higher. Crude and rude people get shamed and ostracized pretty quickly in small communities. Why? Because you can't hide behind the anonymity of the crowd. It operates in big cities vs small towns, and it's magnified many-fold online where everyone is anonymous.

That's why young people get into so much trouble on vacation. How true though. You're in your small hometown at the local diner and the service and food is horrible that night, you politely say something or you ignore and hope for better next time. But far away or in a huge city, do you handle that as kindly?

And to the person saying "intolerance" is probably not the right word, they may be right. It's the expression of that intolerance, call it "ugliness" or "meanness".

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There's nothing new under the sun. There are intolerant, close-minded, self-absorbed people everywhere. The reason we see more of them in online forums like this is b/c the cost of being a dick is very low. Most of the social conventions that have evolved to keep people inline simply don't operate very well online. And this is especially true when participants are anonymous.

The phenomena can easily be seen in the real world when you compare small town life to big city. People generally behave better to each other in small towns, not b/c they are better people, but simply b/c the cost of bad behaviour is higher. Crude and rude people get shamed and ostracized pretty quickly in small communities. Why? Because you can't hide behind the anonymity of the crowd. It operates in big cities vs small towns, and it's magnified many-fold online where everyone is anonymous.

I've argued for real names here. I don't think it would erase poor behaviour, but research suggests it would improve it.

I partly agree and partly disagree. Is that tolerant?

I live in a small town in a county with few people compared to nearby cities and counties.

Honestly, the politics in my county and town is so rude, dishonest, divisive and intolerant it makes Washington DC look good. I am not kidding either. I wish I was kidding. A small handful of people are responsible, maybe one or two dozen people, but it is enough to cause all sorts of problems. One of the local politicians is now spewing his venom at the state level and has split his own party.

The people who are so divisive in our county have gone after people who have posted opinions they did not approve. By this I mean, they tried to get people fired for posting during work hours even though it was acceptable company policy. They have threatened legal action against people for stating their opinions and facts. They have threatened the owner of the website with legal action for allowing these opinions to be posted. Being anonymous is a defense sometimes. Ben Franklin used it very effectively with his newspaper.

The people who are causing this angst are well known even when they use anonymous IDs. Its really funny when we would see the mayor posting under a different ID. The writing style is so pompous and condescending that a fake ID cannot hide the true identity of the writer. Many of the Mayor's Minions would use fake IDs but they were always outed because they were so easily identified.

I do think you are correct, that generally speaking, rural areas are much more polite than urban areas. Doing something shameful and rude might get back to your momma which ain't good. The other advantage to rural areas is that too many people get on people's nerves which causes stress. Go to Disney World and watch how people react to crowds. It gets stressful. I have a 45 minute drive home from work and the first 15 minutes are so can be stressful but then I am on rural roads and the drive is no big deal because there is no traffic that is a concern.

Being anonymous has its good points and bad points. I think mostly good especially in the Information Age when finding information on people is so easy.

Later,
Dan

[Hudson Force]

So, I'm in! I say we all ban together and quit putting up with the intolerant people. When it comes to the statements of all these people with uncompromising views, I say, "No More Tolerance!"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by dannc

I partly agree and partly disagree. Is that tolerant?

I live in a small town in a county with few people compared to nearby cities and counties.

Honestly, the politics in my county and town is so rude, dishonest, divisive and intolerant it makes Washington DC look good. I am not kidding either. I wish I was kidding. A small handful of people are responsible, maybe one or two dozen people, but it is enough to cause all sorts of problems. One of the local politicians is now spewing his venom at the state level and has split his own party.

I'm sure there are many exceptions to my example Dan, but in general the closer people exist in a real community, the more civil that community tends to be. That's not to say there aren't truly insidious and ugly ways that people in small communities can act towards each other. But there tends to be a thicker veneer of civility.

It's often been noted that many of the bitter disputes we see play out here (anchors, guns, teak, fridge, keel, boat design...) almost never happens at the dock or in an anchorage. It's only the low-cost nature of online anonymity that allows these disputes to get started, and often turn ugly.

[BandB]

Anonymity is often necessary online. But in some ways the behavior of anonymous is a reminder of the attitude that "anything is ok as long as I don't get caught." There was an old saying, "Don't do anything you'd not want your mother to know about." I do wonder sometimes how many posting ugliness have children and is that really what they want to be teaching their children. So do we behave better when we have to answer to someone? Yes, human nature says we do. But we shouldn't. I know I became a better person for many reasons when I met my wife but certainly one was not wanting to do anything that would disappoint her in me. Honestly though over time it became more not wanting to disappoint myself. That's not saying I never have or never do. But I do hold myself accountable. If I say something that someone finds hurtful, even if I didn't intend to make it be so, I do feel bad about it.

I also choose time and place. I have views on politics and religion as do most people, but I don't come to a cruising forum to argue those subjects. I have parenting opinions, but I don't come here to argue those either. When it comes to certain issues and the question of what I would do, I express that. But when doing so I'm not telling others that if they do differently, they're wrong.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by BandB

..
And to the person saying "intolerance" is probably not the right word, they may be right. It's the expression of that intolerance, call it "ugliness" or "meanness".

I think it is a combination of things, intolerance is mostly certainly involved as is rudeness, ignorance and emotion. Seafrontiersmans is right on about not being in range of a snappy right.

The other website I follow started a thread about Rebel Heart which was not surprising. What WAS surprising is one person who used to live on a sailboat was critical of Rebel Heart. This person, lets call them Sam, is a really bright guy and when he posts I pay attention. Sam has deep knowledge about certain things and I highly value his posts. He is a good guy. This website is about living in the country so there is a certain tolerance if not down right expectation to let people do their own thing.

Because I have been reducing my cruising Ignorance by lurking on CF, I "knew" Rebel Heart and I was following their thread so I had/have far better information than non CF readers about what was happening with Rebel Heart. I repeated what was known about Rebel Heart on the other site's discussion. What I noticed was that many of the posters critical of Rebel Heart were flat out ignorant about cruising. Of course many, including, Sam, reacted emotionally to the Rebel Heart story because of the baby. Lets face it, if Rebel Heart had four adults on board, and one had a heart attack, the reaction to the events would have been no where like what has happened. In fact, it might not have made the news.

Ignorance, intolerance, rudeness and emotion seem to stir up the Internet.

For some reason B's post made me thing about this WAY too much!

Later,
Dan

[Coops]

There is also the chance online to spend hours on your retort/response that allows the less quick witted to come up with something at least partially intelligent and understandable. Whereas in a one on one situation the first thing that comes to mind perhaps would be **** off.

Even I can pass, well once in a while, as somebody you could have a conversation with if you give me half an hour to formulate a ten word sentence.

Coops.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Coops

There is also the chance online to spend hours on your retort/response that allows the less quick witted to come up with something at least partially intelligent and understandable. Whereas in a one on one situation the first thing that comes to mind perhaps would be **** off.

Even I can pass, well once in a while, as somebody you could have a conversation with if you give me half an hour to formulate a ten word sentence.

Coops.

Wifey B: But you're Australian so you sound good saying it anyway.

[Coops]

I live in Australia, but I am a Pommie. Which way that tips the scales I have no idea.

PS, I will ring you one night and talk softly to you if you like.

Coops.

[cabo_sailor]

This is an interesting thread. I am one of a minority of people that have never understood people. I have extreme problems remembering names and faces. I thought I was alone until I read an article that Brad Pitt has the same problem and that roughly 20 percent of the population has the same problem.

I have come to expect the intolerance, I just do not understand it. I've always thought my lack of understanding was due to my lack of comprehension of people. As a result when I see posts that I would consider mean or vindictive I tend to dismiss them. Perhaps they have a point but its not one I recognize. The majority of posts here are, or so I believe, are from well meaning people.

As a rule, I enjoy most of the posts and have learned a lot, even though I might not agree. It is good to see different opinions and make my own decisions.

Best wishes to all,

Rich

[Horror Hotel]

How about intolerance to viruses? What do you guys think about the anti-vaxxers?