Tolerance

[Jive Brummie]

Good thread Duncan .

And also a potential powder keg!

Now believe it or not but I can sometimes lack in the tolerance department where other forum members are concerned . Sometimes it's an emotional response of which I normally later regret but other times it may be a bit of a wind up and there purely for baiting purposes *sorry*. What does wind me up however with the tolerance thing, and yeah i guess it's a bit of a tenuous link, but, double standards send me insane with rage. Example being, (keeping any names out of it to protect the innocent!) Person A makes a statement on a thread, Person B gets annoyed and responds a bit too harshly and so vents their spleen all over the thread, (that last one is the position I normally take ) Person A and their hench men deride Person B for their opinion stating everyone's entitled to an opinion...but obviously not you! And then to top it off Person B recieves many...many, PM's in a threatening tone bordering on the violent stating that they are not entitled to their own opinion as far as 'A' is concerned, on nothing more than the position of which they hold within the dance environment, ie. they teach

So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not aloud to disagree with somebody elses opinion but a paying punter can. The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behaviour? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?

J.

[Andy McGregor]

So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not allowed to disagree with somebody else's opinion but a paying punter can. The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behavior? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?

J.

This is an unnecessary question. All teachers are already bonkers.

[Jive Brummie]

This is an unnecessary question. All teachers are already bonkers.

Ahaaaaaaa, nail and head spring to mind.

J.

[Dreadful Scathe]

The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behaviour? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?

Going bonkers doesnt get you anywhere though. Nod happily as you would at a small child who for some reason has got hold of a monkey wrench and is too close to your testicles for comfort. Maybe they'll go away if they see you dont care "You cant do that" always escalates the situation

Ouch.

[Jive Brummie]

Going bonkers doesnt get you anywhere though. Nod happily as you would at a small child who for some reason has got hold of a monkey wrench and is too close to your testicles for comfort. Maybe they'll go away if they see you dont care "You cant do that" always escalates the situation

Ouch.

With you and your monkey wrench my nuts are tightening...oooooooo

[David Bailey]

Person A and their hench men deride Person B for their opinion

Hench men? There are hench men now? When did they get handed out then? Damn, I knew I'd forgotten something on my Evil Overlord To-Do List...

Ooh, I'd love to be a hench man, anyone want me?

So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not aloud to disagree with somebody elses opinion but a paying punter can.

I think, and I could be just being too hench-y here, that you're saying "The customer is always right" is unfair?

People who make money from a business are in a different position to people who pay money to a business; you're a vendor, and they're customers. So yes, their opinion can be treated differently, on some things. That's the nature of the business; any business, in fact.

For example, if ZW and Jon Brett were both to say "Hipsters is the best place in town, bar none", I'd pay more credence to ZW, as there's less chance of a conflict of interest.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I think, and I could be just being too hench-y here, that you're saying "The customer is always right" is unfair?

When did he say that? James isnt complaining about the punters having a say, hes complaining that he cant!

So yes, their opinion can be treated differently, on some things.

quite, but James was saying he's been told he's not allowed an opinion and he didnt say it had anything to do with his job. Should 'treated differently' equate to being hit with sticks until you shut up ?

For example, if ZW and Jon Brett were both to say "Hipsters is the best place in town, bar none", I'd pay more credence to ZW, as there's less chance of a conflict of interest.

And shes the only one that looks cute in a black and white hat. Theres evidence Vote with the hat. Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, just look at out politicians. If Jon Brett went to visit other venues but ZW didnt, who would you trust then? You either trust someones opinion or you don't. Its just a pity Jon Brett looks so shifty

[David Bailey]

When did he say that? James isnt complaining about the punters having a say, hes complaining that he cant!

With great power comes great responsibility. Or so Spiderman tells us.

Actually, I'm not completely sure what James was complaining about, so a bit of clarification would help...

And shes the only one that looks cute in a black and white hat. Theres evidence

Works for me.

If Jon Brett went to visit other venues but ZW didnt, who would you trust then? You either trust someones opinion or you don't.

It's not a question of trust, but objectivity. You can't be objective about your own work, or it's much more difficult. Jon's on the stage spinning his tunes, he's not chatting and dancing to loads of different people.

If they both went to the same venue as punters... hmm, I dunno, I think I'd treat their opinions as the same. I might even prefer JB, as ZW sometimes has weird taste in music...

Its just a pity Jon Brett looks so shifty

Well, yeah - I'm still trying to blot out the memory of seeing him in a Santa suit at St Albans last month, I'll be sending him the therapy bills that's for sure.

[Dreadful Scathe]

It's not a question of trust, but objectivity. You can't be objective about your own work, or it's much more difficult. Jon's on the stage spinning his tunes, he's not chatting and dancing to loads of different people.

But he is watching the floor and can see whats happening. It could be argued he would get a better feel for the night as a DJ than a dancer would. Ive been to venues where the music suited me perfectly and I was on the floor non-stop yet I've heard people complain about the same night. As a dancer I'm only a judge of what suited me . And, as you say, althougth it may be more difficult to be objective about your own work, everyone trys to be, so it comes back to trust again. Fair enough, if you dont know either Jon or ZW you are probably best to take the opinion of the least biased person there - but thats down to your opinion .

[Jive Brummie]

To just reiterate...James isn't saying anything but purely relaying a situation observed from a distance...

But thankyou for the comments gentlemen

j.

[LMC]

OK, I wanted to actually think about this one before I responded (yeah, I know, why break the habit of a lifetime, etc.)

As I said up-thread, I think education and freedom of information can go a long way towards addressing intolerance. Self-knowledge is a critical part of this education. Despite the below:

The Army did all sorts of training, helping soldiers learn about each other, and to build bridges, and to address soldiers’ root cause feelings of bigotry and hatred and ignorance. LOTS of classes, awareness sessions, sensitivity work. Lots of Organizational Effectiveness specialists working with unit commanders, trying to communicate a different way of thinking about soldiers who were “different” than they were.

It failed miserably. Race relations did not improve appreciably. Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.

You can lead a horse to water...

In my opinion, the means of delivering the education must in some way have been at fault. You can't overturn the deep-seated prejudices of years in a few encounter group sessions or by telling people that they have to be nice to each other. It strikes me that the Army, in this case, did not get to the root cause of *why* the racists were acting in that way - perhaps they didn't want to be "shocked" by the answers - if you can get somone to articulate - even if it's an "I dunno" - then you can start attacking root causes (Why don't you know? Have you ever thought about it? Why/Why not? etc). Unfortunately this approach takes a lot of time and money and implies you actually care about people, rather than their behaviour. In other words, you are respecting their beliefs, however vile you think they are and however much you have an agenda of changing them.

It's not the opinion that matters as much as how you express it.

Hmm, I think most of us would say this is simplistic because we all have limits of tolerance. But in principle, if the opinion is expressed with respect and leaves someone to continue freely following their beliefs, then "yeah, that".

If several hundred people call me a nutter, then that is bound to have a negative effect (people being what they are - as I said earlier, it can be very difficult to be different). But if only one person calls me a nutter and I'm upset by the way they have expressed themselves, doesn't it indicate some measure of doubt or sensitivity on my part? So I think that it's critical for people to learn/have some self-esteem and self-respect - how can you respect anyone if you don't respect yourself?

Oooh, I think I might have opened a new can of worms...

Most people don't think of themselves as "evil", true. Or insane, for that matter.

[David Bailey]

OK, good point. I should have said:

"Most people except LMC don't think of themselves as evil."

Happy?

[Tazmanian Devil]

I'm a bit late into thhis thread but hey!! even still

I am not intolerant of the intolerant. I try to tolerate them as best I can.

Try and say that one 4 times when your drunk

[pjay]

As I said up-thread, I think education and freedom of information can go a long way towards addressing intolerance. Self-knowledge is a critical part of this education. Despite the below:

You can lead a horse to water...

In my opinion, the means of delivering the education must in some way have been at fault. You can't overturn the deep-seated prejudices of years in a few encounter group sessions or by telling people that they have to be nice to each other. It strikes me that the Army, in this case, did not get to the root cause of *why* the racists were acting in that way - perhaps they didn't want to be "shocked" by the answers - if you can get somone to articulate - even if it's an "I dunno" - then you can start attacking root causes (Why don't you know? Have you ever thought about it? Why/Why not? etc). Unfortunately this approach takes a lot of time and money and implies you actually care about people, rather than their behaviour. In other words, you are respecting their beliefs, however vile you think they are and however much you have an agenda of changing them.

Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.

After reading your post, I'm left wondering which people we should "care about" more, those who seem to think that it's acceptable to be commiting such crimes, or those whom they're being committed against?

I don't disagree that education can be a powerful tool in dealing with this sort of thing, but I am not convinced that education is the be all and end all. I think I mentioned this previously that there are two schools of thought - change the mind and the behaviour will follow, and change the behaviour and the mind will follow (yes I would say that sometimes this can change "public" behaviour without having any affect on the mind).

Perhaps one might argue that sometimes education may include forcing people to do something that they don't want to (or stop them doing something that they do want to). I can remember plenty of times that I went to classes at school and university, and plenty of day when I've gone to work, when I didn't want to. I can remember a time when my driver's license didn't let me drive by myself - regardless of the fact that I would have liked to, the point of this being that the law makers didn't believe that I had enough experience and needed more education on the matter.

I do not think that being human is about being "nice" to everyone. I think that as much as possible we should aim to live peacefully (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse), however, sometimes in order to be able to have integrity we need to stand up for what we believe in, we need to perhaps go to war. Yes we may even do this in error - but I'd rather make a mistake than live a life of being "nice" to people who are causing ongoing harm to others. And this does mean that while I may be offended by the actions of some people who believe that my actions are causing ongoing harm, then I would fight for their right to respond with "reasonable force" to me.

If someone is running at you with a knife yelling "I'm going to kill you," I do not think that it is time to suggest "hey, why doing we sit down in a group session and talk about why it is that you want to kill me." I think that it is time to take up arms and defend yourself - if in the process of defending yourself you happen to kill this person, then so be it.

[LMC]

Re: pjay's first point, that would be the bleedin' 'eart liberal in me coming out. Fair point, I concede that in an "out of control" situation, more drastic measures than talking about it are required.

Given the severity of the incidents in the Army, then the draconian action taken was justified. But they might as well have done that to start with rather than educate ineffectively.

In an environment with less propensity for violence (let's face it, the Army trains people to kill other people) then effective education has always got to be preferable IMO - not necessarily on its own, but could be in conjunction with "legislation". As pjay says, you can change the behaviour without changing the mindset - in fact, what happens is that you then end up with an undercurrent of resentment which sends the intolerant behaviour "underground" and makes it worse.

Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.

That's why I wanted to make the 'respect' point - on an individual basis, surely it's better to address why they think that way and alter their perceptions.

[pjay]

Re: pjay's first point, that would be the bleedin' 'eart liberal in me coming out. Fair point, I concede that in an "out of control" situation, more drastic measures than talking about it are required.

Given the severity of the incidents in the Army, then the draconian action taken was justified. But they might as well have done that to start with rather than educate ineffectively.

In an environment with less propensity for violence (let's face it, the Army trains people to kill other people) then effective education has always got to be preferable IMO - not necessarily on its own, but could be in conjunction with "legislation". As pjay says, you can change the behaviour without changing the mindset - in fact, what happens is that you then end up with an undercurrent of resentment which sends the intolerant behaviour "underground" and makes it worse.

Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.

That's why I wanted to make the 'respect' point - on an individual basis, surely it's better to address why they think that way and alter their perceptions.

In terms of "effective" education, I wonder what that might be. I'd be willing to bet that the Army, and the educators in question probably thought that they could effectively educate the people, and only discovered with hindsight that their efforts were ineffective, so I wonder how one would know an effective educator for the circumstance - I for one don't have a crystal ball.

I would be willing to bet that an effective means of education in terms of "interacting" with others would be to create some kind of circumstance in which you grow to know and respect the person before discovering this point that has been repulsive to you - then you have to make a choice - do I go with the "all <insert group> people are <insert insult>," or do I have to admit that this person whom I care about/relate to/have put effort into is an ok person - even though they fit into a category that I don't like. I think that this can be a first step towards removing the wall.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.

I feel in fairness someone needs to point out that racist attitudes in Britain today differ markedly from some that have been seen in the last hundred years. We don't make people sit on different benches and take different buses because of the colour of their skin. We don't put people in gas chambers because of their race; we don't chop off people's limbs with machetes because they come from a different tribe. These events seem so 'foreign' because Britain has a built-in tolerance, consideration and respect for others that is, sadly, absent in many societies. While we do have some problems - they are of an entirely different order.

[pjay]

I feel in fairness someone needs to point out that racist attitudes in Britain today differ markedly from some that have been seen in the last hundred years. We don't make people sit on different benches and take different buses because of the colour of their skin. We don't put people in gas chambers because of their race; we don't chop off people's limbs with machetes because they come from a different tribe. These events seem so 'foreign' because Britain has a built-in tolerance, consideration and respect for others that is, sadly, absent in many societies. While we do have some problems - they are of an entirely different order.

Perhaps it is just a matter of time - moving from "where we were" towards "where we'd like to be." Probably a matter of concerted effort over a period of time...

It seems to me to be pretty common place in societies in history to enslave, marginalise and slaughter those who're different (although in saying that there have also been many instances in the past of societies who care much more for "the stranger" than we tend to today)... Perhaps we're now less likely to be enslaving and marginalising... maybe in the future with effort we can get to a stage where race really is not an issue.

[Gadget]

we may get to a stage where colour of skin is not indicative of race, but I doubt that we will get to a stage where race is not an issue.

[Dreadful Scathe]

we may get to a stage where colour of skin is not indicative of race

it already is, it just depends where you are - all the ethnic cleansing in the ex-Yugoslavia were white skinned people - the kurds are the same colour as Saddam, the English are the same colour as the Scottish etc...