Tolerant or Intolerant?

Also, for some, the things that gave them high status within their own cultural group no longer exists so they are fighting to find both a place and blame.

I think this is really thoughtful.

I see this a lot with conflicts between grans and mums. Things the grans had to put up with aren’t what mums will. It causes no end of confusion and hurt.

I think we all learn to fit in (or decide not to) our surrounding culture. Just think of when you change schools. Mostly, as adults, we don't go where we always feel comfortable. There are times when you have to though. Work would be one example, GN another. It is more obvious between countries but it is certainly true within the country. In the west we are more likely to take a gift for our hostess if we are visiting or dining. We would also be disinclined to discuss the price of the gift, the value would be in the thought. In China you might well receive a gift from your host and the value would be in the cost. Easy to trip up with this but also easy to learn. The good manners of conversation are, I would suggest, much less easy to notice and realise the someone thinks you are being rude or so it seems.

I am not sure that your two families in and near Virginia fell out because one believed in one group of niceties and the other in a different one Rose. It sounds like a rather different argument and one where they just couldn't let go.

MawB makes me laugh Lazigirl especially when she puts a emoji after her comment. lol

GracesGranMK3 - you’re so right on this. I grew up with my grandparents giving to anyone who called at their farm that I still do it to this day. My DH can’t understand this generosity but I see it as hospitality! I love giving whatever I have to share and whenever someone shares with me I’m delighted, no matter how humble the offering.

Oh you tell me rosecarmel.

What a good example of exactly what I was trying to describe Summerlove. It just goes to show how quickly cultures change, even within families. There, love and/or necessity can stop you treading on others toes but here we don't know one another, can't see one another and can identify with a larger, comforting group who share much of our own cultural mores. It makes me think that maybe we do pretty well, all things considered

I have been away from the computer since 6 o'clock or so, and missed a lot of the posts about politeness varying from one culture to another, also missed GG3's reply to my last comment.

Much "polite behaviour" in every culture centres on consideration for others - (though it morphs easily into which fork to use and how to address an archbishop and so on) It is said to be polite in one culture to burp appreciatively after a good meal, in another to lend your wife to warm a frozen and lonely visitor to your igloo. Neither would be "polite" in all societies, but they stem from consideration for the work of a busy cook or for the plight of the traveller who may have trudged hundreds of miles through snow and ice from his home comforts. (The traveller making free with your wife probably required tolerance, too!)

In the UK, "Be polite" implicitly includes "show tolerance" of people who have other views than your own. Disagreement with the view doesn't preclude consideration for the person who holds the view.

Good post Elegran. However, there are limits to this surely. Like racism, peodophilia, fascism ........and in such case, the 'disagreement' of the view goes very much with no 'consideration' for the person.

In the UK, "Be polite" implicitly includes "show tolerance" of people who have other views than your own.

I'm afraid that's not my experience of some who stick by the "rules" of "polite society". If anything they criticise those who do not obey their cliques rules while seeing those rules as all they need to do - no thinking required. They certainly don't want to understand that theirs is not the only, nor necessarily the best, way to draw and redraw societies boundaries.

The people mentioned by Jura are acting against laws and humanitarian standards, not even just social custom, so they should expect condemnation. They have treated their victims brutally.

I assume GG3 speaks of posters who don't agree with her views on how to change society, and thinks that they too have forfeited the right to any tolerance, consideration of politeness?

You crack me up Sharon

My mother's definition of 'good breeding' (whatever that meant!!) and 'good manners', was never making anyone else feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.

*never making anyone else feel uncomfortable or embarrassed *but my god, they paid for it with extreme passive aggression. My deceased MIL was ace at this, LOL.

I assume GG3 speaks of posters who don't agree with her views on how to change society, and thinks that they too have forfeited the right to any tolerance, consideration of politeness?

I have been extremely careful not to personalise my contributions to this discussion.

First Paddyanne, I agree that you speak your mind and to my mind you do it well. I don't agree with you most of the time but I have never been offended by any of your posts.

Secondly, there is at least one, may more people who under the cover of I am a straight talker are just hurtful, nasty, or boastful and these are the people I object to. Do they I wonder speak face to face with others in the same manner?

This thread has widened at times to include the "outside world" but I have taken it as being primarily about the exchange of views on Gransnet - that is what posters mention most often, and that is what concerns them when they (tentatively!) put their heads above the parapet to venture an opinion, sometimes for the first time on social media.

Here is a different question - " Does it work?" ie, How many people have changed their (political) allegiances and voted differently because they have been ridiculed or lambasted for the thoughts they had posted earlier which were not exactly in line with those of posters with louder and more demanding voices?

If a conversion is out of fear of bullying, just how deep and lasting is it in reality? Is it not more likely to be sustained only while the aggressive voice is still ringing in the ears, then dropped for the inner conviction?

Apply the same question - " Does it work?" - to someone who respects and admires a poster/speaker for their attitude to those with whom they discuss their views - seeing that they have respect for other positions even while they refute them, allow an interlocutor to speak of their own fears and worries without accusing them of selfishness or elitism, and refrain from ranting and rabble-rousing.

Surely the reader/hearer is more likely to emulate that person than one who treats them as an enemy to be annihilated?

Sometimes I suspect that political debate is seen by some as a game of squash for the mind, the object being to gain points by blistering serves and exhausting rallies, sending your opponent rushing from one side of the court to another, returning the ball with a powerful stroke, occasionally as a body blow that causes such pain that they retire hurt and give up the game for ever.

My grandson and grand-daughter play squash (competitively and very well, at Uni and college level) but I have only tried it occasionally in my teens, and I know I am not quick enough, powerful enough, or competitive enough for it. However, I can recognise a squash court, racket and ball, and appreciate a good fair game. I can also recognise the type of ball and the ourt or pitch used in other competitive sports, and distinguish the type of player who plays so as to injure his opponent from the one who plays the ball so as to score goals.

You obviously consider it okay to attack me personally Elegran but consider it okay to attack me personally - why?

I am not sure that in anyone's culture that is showing respect, good manners or anything of that ilk you would like to call it. However, it seems it is part of your culture to make a personal attack rather than pursue the argument/discussion.

The OP talks about posters "sewing the seeds of anger, disrupting the whole thread."

You say This thread has widened at times to include the "outside world" but I have taken it as being primarily about the exchange of views on Gransnet - that is what posters mention most often, and that is what concerns them when they (tentatively!) put their heads above the parapet to venture an opinion, sometimes for the first time on social media.

There is little fact in this paragraph but a bit of swerving the subject to a direction you want to take. Is that why you made a pre-emptive attack? In order to turn the discussion? I suppose it could be but surely in that case you are just behaving in the way you like to criticise.

Here is a different question - " Does it work?" ie, How many people have changed their (political) allegiances and voted differently because they have been ridiculed or lambasted for the thoughts they had posted earlier which were not exactly in line with those of posters with louder and more demanding voices?

And here we have it. This is what I, Elegran wants to talk about. You could have introduced it without becoming personal surely?

Why would anyone want a conversation if you come along and disrupt the whole thread with an unwarranted personal attack? I have a feeling you have proved the OP's point.

Elegran, your posts are thoughtful- But also contain bits of info and twists intended to influence .. And underscore and reinforce .. using squash as both an example and also distraction ..

My political views have shifted dramatically due to online usage, due to kind views, and harsh narratives- Both my husband and myself voted differently in the last presidential election as a result of having access to world wide opinion and facts-

When people speak from a place of complete frustration they dont always necessarily come across as kind or nice but are no less authentic than measured missives that are civil but absent of emotive passion-

Both have worth-

Who is attacking you personally, GG3 ? Not me! I assure you that you are not important enough in my list of Gransnet characters for me to pick you out specifically to denigrate. As you have posted of yourself earlier, I am very careful NOT to be personal in my posts. I have posted about a principle, not a personality

There are sometimes posts on the political threads about which one might say such things as I have posted - that is not to be denied - but to claim that you are being pinpointed as an illustration of them is to believe that you are instantly recognisable. What does that say about your perception of yourself?

Yes,Rosecarmel I try to influence, but to influence people to think and consider their decisions and actions and their consequences, not to force them into decisions and actions pre-determined by my plan for how I want them to decide and act.

When one supports something specific some measure of expectation is attached- What's the difference between using forceful language and reinforcing personal views via social media?

Just joined today and read some of this …….. wow this is all a bit too navel gazing for me, I shall go look for some more fun topics. What ever happened to sense of humour?

Forceful language and reinforcing one's views while supporting something are fine - denigrating the personal attributes of someone for not agreeing with you is not.

sf101 There is plenty of fun and humour on GN, but again and again the subject arises of intemperacy and personal remarks against posters expressing contrary views.