I find it weird when people say they want a more united and compassionate world, but then completely shut out anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them. They’ll go on about tolerance and empathy — but the moment someone has a different worldview or life experience, they’re automatically labeled as ignorant, dangerous, or evil.
Of course, there are extreme cases where someone is openly hateful or violent — those people don’t deserve a pass. But not everyone who disagrees with you is some villain. Sometimes people are shaped by their environment, upbringing, struggles, or fears … and when you demonize them without even trying to understand, you’re doing the exact thing you claim to stand against.
If unity is truly the goal, you can’t just write off half the population. Otherwise, you’re not working toward connection, you’re deepening the divide. And maybe, just maybe, the world would be a little less tense if we could stop treating every disagreement like a declaration of war.
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Is this unpopular?
Its a false narrative that division is always bad. Its kumbaya without looking at some of the hard truths about life
Wanting everyone to think the same way is still wanting unity, though.
You can absolutely write off half the population rooting for fascism. There is no both sides in that conversation.
Unfortunately human nature makes having different groups not getting along inevitable. And complete equality is a myth for individuals and groups. Some people or groups are inferior in some ways and superior in others. Taking those factors into account and creating a stable and prosperous system is a miracle that is under appreciated achievement. Unity only works when the groups or people who are under a system keep things from going too crazy.
What you’re arguing against is Individualism, in favor of Collectivism. And that is a pie in the sky, kumbaya ideal. I agree, there ought to be a base set of “standards” that we all adhere to (in America, originally defined as “Individual Rights”), but outside of those, the world is yours to live free and die in.
> Of course, there are extreme cases where someone is openly hateful or violent — those people don’t deserve a pass.
> If unity is truly the goal, you can’t just write off half the population.
So wait, can one write off an entire group if they are openly hateful or violent? Or does that make one part of the division?
You kind of assume that there aren’t huge segments of humans who aren’t openly hateful or violent, which I’m not sure is accurate.
You need to learn about the Tolerance Paradox.
I do not want to unite with self proclaimed Nazis or white supremacists
I will not be buddy buddy with Conservatives. They believe in things that make me sick and it’s just that simple
Fundamentally, the division in the western world is mostly imaginary. It is people who are fighting against shadows on the wall. What we’re experiencing is a media ecosystem that feeds on outrage and a social media system that divides people into echo chambers. While it is not a realistic solution, if you shut off people’s access to online media and social media, and shut down biased national news outlets like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, within 5 years people would feel a lot more united.
Thats why I don’t claim to care about unity 😂 some of y’all are shitty people and are lost causes
The only people I see get regularly written off as hopeless are the openly hateful people and those that side with them. Ignorance is not an excuse when you’re supporting fascism, the same way just following orders wasn’t an excuse at the nuremberg trials. The tolerance paradox is very real and it’s the reason we’re in the sad state that we currently are here in the US, we were too tolerant to the intolerant and they walked over the tolerant people and took over.
That’s right, we need diversity of every single thing but thought. We all must think the same…
Everyone moves in their own self-interest. That’s the norm, so unity is a false precept.
oh BROTHER
I fux wit it
💯
I wholeheartedly agree with OP
The thing I have been amused by is how much now those filled with hate for others but want to be seen as the good guys, hide behind these lies. The fact remains 30% of almost every population wants freedom for all and 30% believe that those with power should rule over the weak and 40% seems to fluctuate between sides depending on their self interest. I am not sure how you “unite ” a human paradigm that seems to be hard wired into a social dynamic.
If one group is the problem preventing unity then you need to get rid of them.
Everyone in here arguing for the tolerance paradox are ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that their point of view is the tolerant one. How convenient
Look.
3 brothers voted Trump. I did not.
1 brother is an anti vaccine, racist, republican and freaked out when I said white supremacists are terrorists (12/2020)
We no longer talk
1 brother is racist, doesn’t think a single mom working 80 hours a week should be able to buy her child a birthday cake with food stamps and he’s happily married to his husband. They have dogs, no small humans
We no longer talk
1 brother didn’t vote for Trump in the last election. Since the first time Trump was in office his life has changed drastically and he’s in a much different place. He now actually listens to me when we talk. He watches all the different news shows now. Not just fox.
He’s trying to be a better bean.
You can only allow the toxic mindset so long.
Can they change? Will they change?
It’s very individual.
Nope. You can write people off over differing views and still value unity and tolerance.
Some people’s views are outright repugnant, and destructive. Those people should be demonized. No amount of cope or guilt-tripping should change that. Some of you are bad people who want bad things to happen to people you don’t like, and you want to shame everyone else that chooses to disassociate with you.
To give an outlandish example, I am a black man. If someone was like, “I would vote for a candidate that plans to roll back civil rights and allow states to ban interracial marriage,” I would rightfully choose to never associate with that person.
Now, that may seem ridiculous, but some of you have opinions that are on a parallel line of thinking.
If unity was your goal, you’d dismiss your own prejudices and bigotry, and then the world could be less tense and less divisive.
You weirdos want to be the worst people and be accepted for it.
It’s very easy to say this when you’re not the target of MAGA
Logic?!
On Reddit?!
OP, wtf, you must be crazy.
idk we all have our limits and my limit is people who think they should be treated better than other people.
Also, non billionaires who vote only in billionaire’s interests.
Or basing your whole vote on “them babies” but not gaf about what happens after they are born.
Thank you! Yes, this is so true. I struggle to find the actual tolerance.
>but then completely shut out anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them
That’s a disingenuous mischaracterization. It’s not about people having to think exactly the same. It’s about incompatible worldviews.
>there are extreme cases where someone is openly hateful or violent — those people don’t deserve a pass
So you do get it. I guess we’re done here.
Found the Trumper
It’s not about people being unwilling to work with others who don’t think EXACTLY like them. There are certain groups who will only weaponize our compassion and willing to compromise against us.
Namely, fascists. Fascists consider empathy and the desire to reach everyone weaknesses. And they will bludgeon to death you and any potential movement against them by using our better nature against us.
I am not talking about old school conservatives who value honesty and integrity. They have several redeeming qualities. They just believe in the illusion of meritocracy and are blind to their own privilege.
I’m only talking about fascists.
My grandpa nearly lost both his legs fighting them. I will do whatever it takes to finish the job.
I don’t want unity with fascists and traitors, I want them to stop. Why are you guys always blaming everyone except the people who are the cause of the problem.
Tell us you are bigot without telling us you are a bigot
I mostly agree with you. But i disagree in the idea that it’s hypocritical to want a unifed world and acknowledging that it will never happenen. Which is what happens when you accept that some people are hopeless. Its like an abusive relationship. If people won’t engage in good faith, it’s not worth your mental health to continue trying to convince them.
And to be clear, no one thinks someone is hopeless if they believe sales tax is a better way to fund schools than property taxes. Its when people’s opinions actively hurt other people and they refuse to consider the damage their view points hurt people or worse, revel in it. Thats when nothing will change their views unless something drastic happens to them. Most of those people are hopeless and its not hypocritical of me to say that. I wish the world was perfect, but it’s not an acknowledging that is ok.
I think “unity” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think compassion, tolerance, and empathy are valuable, but I don’t think they’re the end-all, be-all and I don’t necessarily want a “united” world in the way you seem to be thinking of it.
I want a world that is free from oppression. That could perhaps be achieved if people who are supporting, enacting, and upholding the oppressive systems gain compassion for the people who are being oppressed by those systems, and learn to tolerate things they dislike, such as “the presence of people of color in my community.”
However, there is no requirement to be “tolerant” or “empathetic” towards the people who are doing things to make the world a worse place. It can be a tool in the toolbox, but shame and disapproval can be an equally valid tool; it is, for example, necessary to shift the public conversation in such a way that people do not feel comfortable expressing racist views.
To use a common metaphor, if someone is actively standing on your foot, and you ask them to get off your foot, and they say, “I don’t see a problem; I like standing here” you might start getting upset at them for not moving, and maybe even start shoving them off. If someone comes along to say “hey, no, if you want a world where nobody stands on anybody else’s feet, maybe try to see if you can understand what led this person to stand on your foot and see if you can patiently try to ease them towards a point of view where they no longer want to stand on your foot. Maybe they just don’t realize that standing there would mean standing on your foot, or they don’t realize this is hurting you” you might not be too pleased about that.
Have you ever heard those stories on why a church never invites wolves in?
If a church claims that both wolves and sheep are invited, then the church is only going to get wolves for the smart sheep with avoid the church, and the dumb sheep will die to the wolves. By inviting both sheep and wolves, the church really only aligns with the wolves.
You can want unity but be realistic about certain groups of people.
Edit to add: also the biggest reason why groups of people get written off is BECAUSE we understand them and understand why they don’t change. The thing about a lot of these people is that their worldview is constantly challenged by people explaining why they have the right to exist and they plug their ears. Then when they finally push people enough into screaming at them they turn around and go “SEE? I WAS RIGHT!?”
Depends on how you define it. Are we talking about not associating personally or devoting time and money (cancel culture) ….
Or dismissing their role in community and society , voting, working with etc etc
I exercise my teeny tiny influence through the former, because I find it helpful and good…. and have changed through my life.
The latter I try to never do. I become weak and scared sometimes and fail at this, but after the fear passes I see that it was wrong and try to avoid in the future…I see it totally normalized today and it’s utterly counterproductive imo. I’m on the left, mostly, and see it everywhere. The purity test is real and I find it immoral if it prevents reaching others to attain policy that saves lives etc.
Who’s gonna tell him
It really depends on what we are disagreeing about.
You seem to recognize there is a line. So, where is it?
Sorry I can’t give a sh*t to those farmers who voted against their own interest! 🤬
What most people describe as empathy is really sympathy but they don’t want to call it that because sympathy has a negative connotation attached to it. Empathy is literally feeling how another is feeling, not thinking about how others are feeling and projecting your own experiences into them. Empathy is essentially supernatural if you take it literally. Emotion-telepathy. I don’t think most people actually experience sincere empathy, just call it empathy so it seems like they care significantly.
Slaves are legal
Slaves are Illegal
What world view do you align with? One can not exist if the other does… Does this make since?
Ironic Comment section
I can understand where you’re coming from, but characterizing “openly hateful” and “violent” as extreme cases is a bit disingenuous at this point.
Not to mention that the damage harboring intolerant people within communities that are meant to be tolerant and safe causes is similar to a rot. It starts with one person speaking up, being told to be patient or “talk it out”, then when nothing changes or gets better, they distance themselves and those who want to bully move on to the next vulnerable victim.
If anything we just need stronger boundaries, and actually uphold them when people cross the lines within our communities.
What else are you going to do with countries that have an IQ below 70?
Teach them English and build schools for them?
Liberals giving up the good for the perfect is why you guys can’t get anything done (to be clear I hate trump, but after this election cycle with how complicit they were i can’t call myself a Democrat)
Like, “if you dont agree with our opinions 100% then you can leave!!…. We don’t still need people to vote with us tho so pleeeease? 🥺”
Yeah except we’re at the extreme part now; people are justifying literal atrocities.
You can’t have unity with people that don’t want to unify.
And there’s nothing noble about tolerating those who don’t tolerate you.
Oh, someones mad again that people dont accept his bigotry
I can understand where you’re coming from, but characterizing “openly hateful” and “violent” as extreme cases is a bit disingenuous at this point.
Not to mention that the damage harboring intolerant people within communities that are meant to be tolerant and safe causes is similar to a rot. You invite them in, they seem okay and then start trying to spread their bigotry. Somebody speaks out, maybe asks for their removal and then gets shamed for being “intolerant”. The people that speak out, distance themselves and get removed instead, slowly but surely leaving behind the intolerant or overly tolerant enablers of the lot.
Sure, people can have their differences in lifestyles and opinions, but vulnerable groups being more defensive in uncertain times are not problematic. Desiring unity and peace and recognizing that you need to have stronger boundaries to protect the peace that you have been building are not opposing concepts.
Also, when do the goalposts stop moving in these situations? Even if it’s not outright asking for genocide, funding, preaching and voting for intolerant and controlling policies and beliefs do cause damage.
It is not intolerant to not be tolerant of intolerance. How many times must we say this? In order for tolerance to exist, intolerance cannot be tolerated. That is not hypocrisy. That is logic.