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

Status
Not open for further replies.
“Not open-minded” has become such a funny phrase. When people used to say that someone is “not open-minded,” it meant “intolerant of those different from themselves, especially those in a minority position.” These days, it more often than not means “intolerant of intolerance.” I am fine with the modern definition. That definitely applies to me!


I believe my post explained this comment quite well, and the hypocrisy this emoji implies you found in it was not present. :)

To answer your second comment... at some point, it becomes unconscionable to vote for a candidate even if you agree with them on a particular issue because of their positions on other issues. Civil and/or human rights, personal freedoms, and other such things should not be written off as collateral damage for other issues. I do believe that there are people who simply don’t know a candidate’s position on every issue & research only what’s important to them (for example, jobs). I certainly don’t know every candidate’s position on every issue. In that sense, I think it’s unfair to say that someone is cruel or stupid just because they voted for a particular candidate, as some imply. I also can’t agree with the “all Liberals are X” & “all Conservatives are X” statements. Too broad & too polarizing.

However, I can’t recall a time (in my personal experience) when a person who has been vocal about the candidate they voted for has not also been vocal about their positions on various issues. It’s difficult for me to imagine a situation in which someone would simply say “I voted for X” & not elaborate on why, or make it very clear via other statements, the contents of their social media page, etc. It may well happen, but I have never seen it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
But people have begun to see that saying as flippant & rather uncaring, & it can really be quite hurtful.
I don't get how that's hurtful or uncaring. It's only because you equate it to one thing...and that is the narrative you choose to take.
 
And that is where you are wrong because obviously you have never been friends with Person B's so you have no idea why they vote the way they do. Maybe if you weren't so intolerant of others beliefs you would find out one day why Person B votes that way.
It isn't to go against Person A, it is to protect Person C. Hardly selfish in their hearts.
Actually, in my opinion, it is very selfish. The person who is being intolerant would be the person trying to limit someone else's medical choices because their moral conscience "believes" there is a C. There are many varying beliefs on C and nobody has the absolute right opinion.

My line in the sand for being friends would be someone who worked hard to and was very vocal about trying to limit someone's choices, any choices that would have no impact on their lives except for being horrified, be it marriages or medical like vaccines, operations, blood transfusions, any medical procedures that should be a decision between a doctor and patient and not between a doctor, a patient, and some stranger's moral opinion. Everyone has to do what is right for them and not try to restrict other people's choices. Because it could come back to haunt them someday when some group may want to restrict their choices.

My line in the sand would be someone who vociferously advocates to limit someone else's choices while they get to keep their choice. That is the epitome of intolerance. I embrace people with different values and beliefs as long as they also believe in equal respect of other people's choices and beliefs.
 


I tried to Google this, but can't find anything. Can we get a link? Some more information?
I won't post links even if I could because as is typical, anything I would link would be biased in one direction or the other. The program is a (40 year old) subsidy for hiring students during the summer months. The policy is publicly-funded abortion on demand. See how the two things have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another??

FTR, this issue has been settled in Canada for many years. Like it or lump it, publicly-funded abortion on demand is 100% legal and available here - period. It's not even a current hot-button issue, nor has it been for as long as I can remember. It's unfathomable why the government has enacted this criteria now, as an administrative measure without any parliamentary debate or public input.

And the assumption that it's only formal religious organizations that will be effected is completely wrong. A private company (let's pick a local landscaper I know of, for example) that hires dozens of students over the summer is owned by a prominent leader in the Muslim community. He will be forced to sign the declaration or lose funding he's ostensibly entitled to as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Another example is one of the largest grocery chains in our City. It is a cooperative with literally tens-of-thousands of member/shareholders. 3 generations kids in my family have worked there summers under Hire-a-Student. Do they sign the declaration? Who decides? The Board of Directors, or do they put it to a membership vote? And what on earth does mowing lawns and bagging groceries have to do with reproductive rights? This is absolutely mindbending.
 
Last edited:
“Person C” ... :scratchin I think it’s impossible to respond to this one without breaking the “religion & politics” rule, other than to repeat that believing in something is not selfish. I have many friends/acquaintances* from different backgrounds & whose beliefs are different from mine. However, attempting to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them (in the form of restrictive public policy) absolutely is. I feel like saying more would be in violation of forum guidelines. I don’t mean to dismiss your statement. :flower3:

* By “acquaintances” I simply mean classmates or friends-of-friends that I occasionally have conversations with, not “strangers I follow on social media but have never actually spoken to” or something to that effect

Fair enough. You think they are selfish because they want to prevent you (general you) from doing something that protects others. I don't see it that way so I'll just disagree since that doesn't fit the definition of selfish IMO. I also have no problems being friends with person B because I don't see them as a "them against me" kind of person. I understand the fact that they have a strong moral belief about it and believe in their hearts it is wrong, and I can respect THAT part of them, even if I disagree with their thoughts on the legality of such a procedure.
One can still manage to be friends with people like that, if they are a little more tolerant of other's beliefs, YMMV.
 
I have no problem being friendly with, or cordial toward, persons with most opposing views. I'm even willing to discuss some topics passionately.

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


I can remain friendly still, but guess my thing would be at work why do I know their beliefs if we aren’t friends? Would seem like it’s b/c their going on about them which is rude & inappropriate.

I don't know... it seems like in a lot of contexts it is impossible not to know. In some professions, it is because a particular worldview goes almost hand-in-hand with the job. I can tell you without a doubt who most of my coworkers voted for in 2016 based on apolitical or only vaguely political things they have on their desks or have said, and frankly, there's a cliche about my profession's political leanings that does have roots in truth. But even without that, anyone who has seen even the public posts on my Facebook page or my car knows something about my leanings (though the latter gives mixed messages - I have a Sierra Club bumper sticker and stickers from both my girls' Catholic schools). And certain people are, shall we say less than subtle about how they feel about certain topics.

But people don't typically get to vote on specific issues like that. They vote for candidates. How is it that you know in their heart if by voting for a particular candidate they did so because they want X outlawed or if there was a different reason for their vote?

Many people will say that outright. I'm part of a community where that came up often, even among the most casual acquaintances - that although individual members of this community found great fault with their choices, there was one issue that compelled them to vote for someone they otherwise felt was repellent. And yeah, some of those are the people I have a hard time remaining friendly with, because their obsession with that one narrowly defined issue leads them to disregard countless other issues of basic human decency and rights.
 
I won't post links even if I could because as is typical, anything I would link would be biased in one direction or the other. The program is a (40 year old) subsidy for hiring students during the summer months. The policy is publicly-funded abortion on demand. See how the two things have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another??

FTR, this issue has been settled in Canada for many years. Like it or lump it, publicly-funded abortion on demand is 100% legal and available here - period. It's not even a current hot-button issue, nor has it been for as long as I can remember. It's unfathomable why the government has enacted this criteria now, as an administrative measure without any parliamentary debate or public input.

And the assumption that it's only formal religious organizations that will be effected is completely wrong. A private company (let's pick a local landscaper I know of, for example) that hires dozens of students over the summer is owned by a prominent leader in the Muslim community. He will be forced to sign the declaration or lose funding he's ostensibly entitled to as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Another example is one of the largest grocery chains in our City. It is a cooperative with literally tens-of-thousands of member/shareholders. 3 generations kids in my family have worked there summers under Hire-a-Student. Do they sign the declaration? Who decides? The Board of Directors, or do they put it to a membership vote? And what on earth does mowing lawns and bagging groceries have to do with reproductive rights? This is absolutely mindbending.

I read a little bit last night about what's going on. I can see the long-reaching ramifications on this. I am wondering why it's being done. One thing that came to mind is what somewhat goes on in the U.S. Here in the U.S. abortion is 100% legal and available (accessibility varies by state and what the 'tone' of the state is); however, anti-abortions groups have been allowed free reign in this country (as they should) and probably, indirectly received federal funds and use those funds to harrass/stop/drag out/coerce, etc., a totally legal procedure. Could it be that Canada sees this and doesn't want it to go too far, such as it has been doing in the U.S.? They don't want their federal funds to assist groups who are doing all they can to stop people from a legal procedure? That's all I could think of as to their reasons for doing it.
 
I read a little bit last night about what's going on. I can see the long-reaching ramifications on this. I am wondering why it's being done. One thing that came to mind is what somewhat goes on in the U.S. Here in the U.S. abortion is 100% legal and available (accessibility varies by state and what the 'tone' of the state is); however, anti-abortions groups have been allowed free reign in this country (as they should) and probably, indirectly received federal funds and use those funds to harrass/stop/drag out/coerce, etc., a totally legal procedure. Could it be that Canada sees this and doesn't want it to go too far, such as it has been doing in the U.S.? They don't want their federal funds to assist groups who are doing all they can to stop people from a legal procedure? That's all I could think of as to their reasons for doing it.
Absolutely nothing of that kind of any magnitude has been reported on in recent times - nothing. The vast majority of abortions in Canada are performed in hospitals and the "rules" on protesters were established (and strictly enforced) decades ago. There is a rather rare, free-standing for-profit abortion clinic in my city that nobody even bothers to picket anymore. There is only one instance I can find on google of an abortion doctor in Canada ever being physically attacked (shot and wounded) and that dates back to 1994.

I'll reiterate that the new restrictions have no basis in what anybody actually DOES, only what they THINK. The declaration doesn't require any promise to do or not do anything - it demands conformity of belief. It's a complete mystery and a very disturbing one because "their federal funds" are tax dollars collected from law-abiding Canadian citizens who ostensibly are entitled to freedom - at least inside our own heads.
 
Fair enough. You think they are selfish because they want to prevent you (general you) from doing something that protects others. I don't see it that way so I'll just disagree since that doesn't fit the definition of selfish IMO. I also have no problems being friends with person B because I don't see them as a "them against me" kind of person. I understand the fact that they have a strong moral belief about it and believe in their hearts it is wrong, and I can respect THAT part of them, even if I disagree with their thoughts on the legality of such a procedure.
One can still manage to be friends with people like that, if they are a little more tolerant of other's beliefs, YMMV.
Person A and B have the same views, just different ways of acting on them. A makes choices for theirself but respects the right that other people should have the same right to make a choice for their own self. B has no respect and is intolerant of other people's right to make their own medical decisions as they want their view point to be law and could care less that someone else may not share their viewpoint. So being friends with A and not B has nothing to do with their viewpoints. If you accept A, you are tolerant of their views. It is B's actions of trying to take away someone else's choices that is unacceptable to some, not their viewpoints.

A and the person who accepts A's views are the tolerant ones. B is the one who is intolerant of other people's choices. Being tolerant is allowing people to make their own choices, as long as it does not harm or affect you, even if you find it horrible. B does not do that. They want their choice and wants to take away anyone else's choice. I agree with the other person that while I could be cordial to that person, I could never be friends with someone who has no respect or tolerance for others.

Let's flip the coin and say you are in Iceland and not a stretch that a radical group like that could pop up here. Iceland has pretty much eradicated Down syndrome in their country by strongly encouraging abortions of babies with special needs. While not law, there is a huge amount of pressure by doctors, peers, and the government to abort babies with Special Needs.

A agrees with this position but does not campaign against allowing babies with special needs to be born and allows everyone to make their own choices. B also agrees with this position, but campaigns vigorously and vociferously to make abortion mandatory for any baby with special needs or disease, refusing to accept that idea that people should be able to make their own choice, especially if they are morally against abortion.

Who is the more tolerant one? A who agrees but makes their own choice for themself or B who only wants their moral choice recognized? And remember, this is a real life situation and happening in another country. It could feasibly happen here one day.

I could be friends with A because, while their position is reprehensible to me, they are entitled to their opinion and they are not forcing their opinion on me. I could only be civil and polite to B because they are trying to force me to follow their reprehensible beliefs and taking away my choice NOT to have a medical procedure.
 
Last edited:
@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.
 
I have many friends/acquaintances* that I have never discussed politics with. I really enjoy spending time with them. Sometimes, what’s going on in our country makes me so sad & angry that I just want to have a night off from talking about it, and there are some who simply can’t do that - including those I agree with.

I have honestly never encountered someone who has simply blurted out “I voted for X” without asking me who I voted for (I never ask) or following up their statement with their reason for saying such. I can’t imagine a situation in which someone would turn to me, say “I voted for X” & then change the subject without pursuing further discussion. On social media, I can’t imagine someone simply posting “I just got back from voting for X!” without having posted or commented on a lot of other material throughout the election. Maybe I just know a lot of extremely opinionated people. :rotfl:

I have only parted ways with one person due to politics. This person treated an entire restaurant to a loud, angry, racist rant filled with slurs & I was so horrified and embarrassed that I immediately removed them from my life in all possible ways. I have also had to move a few people on both sides into the Facebook junk folder, but that’s not “real life.”

I am confused as to how a longtime friendship could come to an end over politics. You would ostensibly know the other person & how they feel about issues that are important to you very well. Short of a complete personality change on their part, or the revelation that they have misrepresented themselves in some way, it seems disingenuous to pull away from someone simply because it has become trendy to do so. There are good people on both sides. I’m sorry if that’s what happened to you.

You're sympathy on the matter means so much to me.

But the thread really isn't about lifelong friends. The topic was whether one could be friendly with people with opposing views. You'd be amazed at the irrational meltdowns I've seen recently over politics. Real temper tantrum type meltdowns.
“Person C” ... :scratchin I think it’s impossible to respond to this one without breaking the “religion & politics” rule, other than to repeat that believing in something is not selfish. I have many friends/acquaintances* from different backgrounds & whose beliefs are different from mine. However, attempting to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them (in the form of restrictive public policy) absolutely is. I feel like saying more would be in violation of forum guidelines. I don’t mean to dismiss your statement. :flower3:

* By “acquaintances” I simply mean classmates or friends-of-friends that I occasionally have conversations with, not “strangers I follow on social media but have never actually spoken to” or something to that effect
I just want to say that I think it's awesome that you took time to read the forum rules so thoroughly before joining less than 2 weeks ago.
 
@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.
Not only do it. But double down absolutely convinced they have the moral high ground.
 
@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.
You have not read my posts then. I have said multiple times I can be and am friends with people with values that I find reprehensible because we have mutual respect that each other has the absolute right to those values. I cannot be friends with people that actively and vigorously campaign to force values that I find reprehensible on me and does not respect my right to my own values. Trying to change what goes on between strangers in a private bedroom or between a patient and their doctor when it has no impact on "you" (global you,) just because "you" feel it is not to your standards, that is intolerance at its highest.

So, you are saying that you could be great friends with someone who was actively and vociferously campaigning, (that is my line in the sand - the getting out and trying to force the issue not that they just have the belief,) to make it absolutely mandatory that no children with special needs or genetic diseases are ever born in their country, especially if you are friends with many awesome people with Down syndrome?

I am very tolerant of opposing views and actually love discussions to understand the whys. Disliking actions is not the same as being intolerant of their views.

Frankly, I am getting sick of people trying to force their moral conscience on others and when you disagree with their methods, )note methods, not beliefs,) you are intolerant. I am more of a live and let live person, respecting that everyone should have the right to make their own choices based on their moral compass.

And I agree with you completely, this thread is really exposing the intolerant.
 
Last edited:
I do not understand the person A, B C thing at all. I just know there are people who claim to be tolerant. They refer to themselves in that matter. But if one doesn't agree with them they change and fast. They become very intolerant and very aggressive towards others. Militant almost.

Part of that is a shift in the meaning of the word, from meaning acceptance of those who are different and acknowledgement of their right to be such, to a new, watered-down version where the only way to claim tolerance in the eyes of some is to have no standards, morals, or judgments at all (or to keep all such thoughts to oneself).

I gave up on tolerance having any real meaning the first time I was attacked for being intolerant of the viewpoints of neo-Nazis - I am tolerant of them, in that I respect their inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights to exist and to spew their filth, but apparently tolerance now demands respecting their opinions and not arguing/opposing the things they say or do. If tolerance means all our opinions are equal, even when those opinions call for sending black Americans "back" (can't go back to a place you've never been, but whatever...) to Africa or claim that women are biologically unfit for leadership and shouldn't be encouraged to take up college admission spots that could go to male applicants who are, I want no part of it.
 
Part of that is a shift in the meaning of the word, from meaning acceptance of those who are different and acknowledgement of their right to be such, to a new, watered-down version where the only way to claim tolerance in the eyes of some is to have no standards, morals, or judgments at all (or to keep all such thoughts to oneself).

I gave up on tolerance having any real meaning the first time I was attacked for being intolerant of the viewpoints of neo-Nazis - I am tolerant of them, in that I respect their inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights to exist and to spew their filth, but apparently tolerance now demands respecting their opinions and not arguing/opposing the things they say or do. If tolerance means all our opinions are equal, even when those opinions call for sending black Americans "back" (can't go back to a place you've never been, but whatever...) to Africa or claim that women are biologically unfit for leadership and shouldn't be encouraged to take up college admission spots that could go to male applicants who are, I want no part of it.
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:
 
I gave up on tolerance having any real meaning the first time I was attacked for being intolerant of the viewpoints of neo-Nazis - I am tolerant of them, in that I respect their inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights to exist and to spew their filth, but apparently tolerance now demands respecting their opinions and not arguing/opposing the things they say or do. If tolerance means all our opinions are equal, even when those opinions call for sending black Americans "back" (can't go back to a place you've never been, but whatever...) to Africa or claim that women are biologically unfit for leadership and shouldn't be encouraged to take up college admission spots that could go to male applicants who are, I want no part of it.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!










Top