Truth Driven Thinking Forum

[harpoonflyby]

I would like to suggest contrary to the discussion in this podcast, that intolerance is not violence. Intolerance may not come in the form of a physical act, but is a form of emotional violence to another person. This definition of non-physical violence is recent, but is being used to convey that verbal, emotional, or physically "violence" comes from the same place. Intolerant behavior is one point along a continuum of violence, and it seems is not so different.

Many today are using this defintion, because intolerance or emotional or verbal violence is a precursor to physical - for those predisposed toward acting out physically. Some individuals simply do not act out physically in social situations, therefore other violent forms of responses are employed to exert force. You may ask how much damage one can really do by intolerance alone? If we are language "beings" at our core, then we must look to language and opinion as the relational tool a civil society has it's means to get along, then it is crucial to understand what it really means to be "intolerant", and it should be equated with violence even if it doesn't cause visible damage.

It matters very little whether one is telling another to leave the room, or one decides to leave the room prematurely. The very act of being intolerant in the course of mutual discussion, is on a micro level an act of violence. If you cannot stand to be in a room with a person you disagree with so much, then by leaving, you are in effect doing harm to yourself and the other person you walk out on (assuming the context is a mutually agreed upon conversation - i.e. provided you don't grab me as a stranger off the street and force me to listen). It then would in fact be immoral for you to do so because this is a "stab in the back" of a mutual understanding, i.e. relationship. That is, if the other participant is simply stating an opinion and nothing else (which admittedly can be difficult to qualify)

If one ceases discussion because of a repulsive urge then one damages a relationship (similar to hitting just not physical). This is because something once valued by yourself, the other participant or both, has become "an object" for your frustration to be acted upon, and in releasing that frustration - by walking out - you damage something you valued. By damaging and breaking relationships you value, you are in this sense behaving violently, and this is what happens when one choses only to listen to those who share the same perspective.

[Steve Gibson]

Certainly we have come to recognize there is a line somewhere where "emotional violence" exists. We draw that line in domestic issues. You raise a point I hadn't considered. I'll ponder. At what point, however, does intolerance become violent, emotionally. How do we know where that line is, if indeed it exists? We certainly don't want to stiffle free speech. I actually argue people have a duty to be authentic in their views, just not mean-spirited, rude, or emotionally abusive (just added that one .
_________________
Steve Gibson,
Reforming emotion-driven thinker