Yes, as long as we don’t try to convert each other or condescend to each other.
But if their personal beliefs are what I’d consider evil (laughing at the children being separated at the border for example) that could be an issue for me. but I know lots of people feel the same way about me for being pro-choice.
Better than the “Protestant to Catholic” thread. I’m a practicing catholic and back in college I used to hang out at the church group based at the Protestant chapel (mild Methodist, according to members.) There’s the daily bible study, and meditations on the faith. From time to time there is the inevitable (negative) mention of certain Catholic beliefs but it never goes out of hand. I for one was still at the uncertain stage regarding my Catholic faith.
However, I discovered an important lesson in life this early: if the “other side” appears to know about your organization much better than you do, don’t ever take them seriously. Those people are A-holes for the most part.
I regularly hang out with people who have differing beliefs. I just don’t hang out with assholes.
Unfortunately, some beliefs seem to turn the people holding them into irredeemable evangelical assholes, without any quiet examples, so it works out that I don’t hang out with anyone who has those specific beliefs. MRAs, for instance. Climate change denialists. Hardcore vegans. Antivaxxers. None of them seem capable of shutting up about that one thing. Even racists seem to be better at keeping it to themselves (although racist = asshole anyway, so I don’t hang with known racists even if they do shut up about it).
Dude, I just want to play Catan, shut the fuck up about divorce courts.
Depends on how pushy they are. My wife and I don’t see eye to eye on many things, including religion. I’m an atheist and she believes in some sort of gods, but we’ve just agreed to disagree and have given up attempting to change other other.
Some of the best discussions I’ve had have been with people who have differing points of view. I had a really good friend who is a liberal Catholic and we had many fascinating discussions about religion because we were very respectful of the other’s beliefs and didn’t attempt to “win” arguments. I find many debates break down into “win” in scare quotes because I find that so many discussions become more about winning and losing than the subject matter.
I was just in the States and had a discussion with a relative concerning the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans in WWII. My mother and her family lived for a year in the Tapaz camp while my grandfather taught school there.
The guy had several talking points to somehow prove that this wasn’t racism, with no interest in a real discussion. His response to my first comment was “You are wrong.” and it went downhill from there. I finally told him “bullshit” and we walked away. I have absolutely no interest in hanging with people such as this.
It seems like a safe conclusion that if I know someone has deplorable beliefs, that automatically makes them an asshole. Because if I know they have those beliefs, that means they’re unabashed enough about them to talk about them to others. Like, there’s a difference between someone who is secretly racist and possibly feeling guilty about it versus someone who is publicly racist and not the least bit apologetic about it. I’ll make some allowances for the publicly racist person who is torn up about it, but the former is a deal-breaker for me.
There are some positions that are I would call “matters of different opinion” and thus not deal-breakers. For instance, pro-choice versus pro-life. Most pro-choice folks aren’t advocating free unlimited abortions for everyone, and most pro-life people don’t think women who suffer a miscarriage be brought in for third-degree interrogation. I think the extremes are problematic, not the nuanced middle. If you’re in the nuanced middle with me, I can work with you–even if we’re not perfectly lined up together. I can vehemently disagree with someone’s politics but still think they are a great person as long as their politics are reasonable–and I think I have a broad definition of “reasonable”. But the moment someone crosses into unreasonable territory, then I’ll pass. There are so many people that I could hang out with. Why waste time with someone who gives me the creeps?
Doesn’t really apply to friendships though. Second, it’s 80% nonsense.
Most of my friends and I have a lot in common, but there are always some differing opinions. We have all been friends long enough to know what those topics are. We still talk about them in a calm and rational manner, (really, we do). I would like to say that we aren’t trying to convert each other, but in some ways we always are. So far, no one has been converted, but we have all become more educated in each others opinions. I guess it’s fun for us to debate these things.
As long as a person is willing to discuss things calmly and listen when the other person talks, I would be willing to hang out with them.
Hello me!
This runs counter to what I’ve generally seen. Quite often, I find that the outsider knows a lot more about things than the insider does.
He didn’t say they didn’t know things. He said that people on the outside who know more things than insiders are a-holes.
I think he meant pesky atheists who know problematic things about the bible, and aren’t afraid to point them out in mixed company.
Well, he said not to take them seriously, which strikes me as a claim they are not knowledgeable, but I take your point.
I think that he has a point and not just in regards to religion. When an outsider knows a ton about an insider culture, they often come at it from the point of an anthropologist and frequently completely miss what’s actually happening and the experiences within the group. They are also quite frequently just wrong. It’s like a person who has visited London a couple of times and has taken quite a literary interest in it, and now “knows” everything about it. A Londoner might recommend a particular place, but the person who ‘knows’ about London might correct them and mention a ‘better’ place or correct them on the best way to use the Tube or which sites are worth seeing. What they are really doing though is describing a very particular view of the place without actually truly knowing or experiencing it. And yes, that makes you dangerously close to being an a**hole.
We see this in religion, yes in regards to atheists and pointing out ‘problems’ in the Bible, but I see it also in regards to Islam. People invent a strawman of the religion that they ‘know’ a lot about and then attempt to demolish it. There’s really only one word for that and that is a**hole.
I think it’s probably a good policy to always beware of the outsider that ‘knows’ more than the insider because you have to ask yourself why they know it and why they feel the need to bring it up and 9 times out of 10 it’s because they are a**holes.
I can depending on their beliefs.
We’ve had the same next-door neighbor for 15 or so years. We’ve been at each other’s for dinner, talk over the fence, helped clear each other’s drive etc. It was only this year I learned that he (not sure about she yet) believes aliens have visited earth and give the higher ups the secret to … well I can’t recall all of them but medical cures, alternate fuels, etc. That Kennedy was killed because he wouldn’t play along.
I can still talk with him, but it does really bug me at times that he believes the government is sitting on a cure to my cancer, and I could get it if only … I don’t know … knew the right people. So I get along fine mostly, but do have to excuse myself on occasion to just go off by myself.
I think about my across-the-street-neighbor. I’ve known him for 15 years, since back when his mom lived in that house with him. He’s elderly and about as good-old-boy as you can get: regularly puts neighbor’s trash cans back in their driveways after the garbage is picked up, cuts roses to give to my daughters from his carefully-tended rose bushes, does a hundred small neighborly things to help. A year or so ago I spent an hour helping him set up his wifi etc., and in return he gave me a washbasin. A washbasin! That’s the kind of guy he is.
When I was setting up his wifi etc., I saw his Facebook feed, full of Trump memes and off-color sexist gross. That’s the sort of thing I can ignore in order to remain neighborly.
A week ago my cat went missing. I set out a humane trap from the shelter, and caught a raccoon instead. The raccoon was barking at me as I tried to figure out how to set it free without my contracting rabies, and my neighbor saw what I was doing. He offered–pressured me to go along–to “get rid of it permanently.” That, I couldn’t go along with, so I stood firm. So he helped me let it go, despite his own misgivings.
I guess that helps me define my line. Trump memes and old men leering at cheerleaders and making jokes about them? Gross, but okay. Killing an animal in a trap from the humane society? Nope.
If his FB feed had been full of stuff worse than Trump memes–say, World Church of the Creator memes–I hope I would’ve broken off the relationship.
Here we go:
Yes, atheists, but the worst are other Christian denominations who clearly use perceived weaknesses in the Catholic church as a positioning strategy (i’m speaking as a marketing man.)
Oh my. Speaking as an annoying know-it-all atheist, know-it-all atheists can be hella pushy and annoying with their clever arguments. I can’t imagine how that would feel coming from someone who felt they had a divine imperative to get up in your business.
We seem to have a sort of consensus here that there are various topics which are tolerable, even if the other person holds a totally disparate viewpoint, as long as it does not become ideological and turn into endless rants. This primarily applies to politics and religion. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers seem to rely more on strongly held opinions than facts, in my biased opinion, but a scientific matter should be resolved by facts without resorting to vituperation. In my experience, that is sadly not always the case. I had an online debate with some I knew from online work on conspiracy theories. He got so unpleasant that I don’t want to hear from anyone anywhere about any conspiracy theory unless they can @$#%ing prove it.
When it comes to morals, and especially sexual behavior, then I find it very hard to associate with people who differ greatly. A different sexual orientation is one thing; I just try to be cool about and talk about the usual kind of things instead of what is like to be gay, or whatever. However, the example of the woman literally screwing around in the family home is one that I could never tolerate. It’s not sexual liberation, it is a personal affront to her family. I don’t want to be around such people.
Last but not last; arguments at work. No way. Working hours are for work.
This is so true. I have unfriended more people on Facebook that I agree with than folks I disagree with. I can’t stand rudeness, even if I agree with what you are saying.
Someone earlier mentioned the difference between thought and action. I agree with that. Somebody who is acting in a way that I REALLY can’t tolerate would also have me giving them a miss. Somebody might have racist views that I don’t agree with, but that is different to somebody going around and attacking people of other races. Sometimes, people hold views because of their life circumstances, where or when they grew up. Those views can change. Somebody who is putting (IMO) wrong views into action are a different kettle of fish. Also, in relation to actions, I would not put myself at risk of adverse consequences from other people’s actions that I don’t agree with, like drug parties or something where you could get arrested. I just wouldn’t be there in the first place.
Sure I can.
My father-in-law is a super conservative. Obama is Hitler, Hillary should be in jail, Climate change is a hoax etc. But as long as we don’t discuss politics he’s fun to hang around with. When he goes on one of his rants, I usually just hold my tongue. The one time I couldn’t was when he was saying that all Muslims were out to get us and that Europe would be taken over by Sharia law within the next 20 years. We had a heated discussion which ended when he said that Obama was letting in Syrian Isis members without any screening. The only way I could continue the argument would have been to flat out say that he was wrong. Instead I just suggested that he and I must have different sources of information and agree to disagree. He got a bit huffy until I agreed that it could easily be my sources that were biased, and so we took a breather, and let bygones be bygones.
Perhaps it was a bit cowardly not to challenge his ideas more vigorously, but I know I’m not going to change his mind, and I want the relationship to work for my wife’s sake also when he’s not talking politics he can be a great guy. So I’ll take the good over the perfect.