Acceptance is the most important message we can spread

I've come to the realization that the facts are not the most important part of the message right now. Before people can come to understand the facts they need to first learn to accept each others differences. We need to set aside our judgements, our fears and our petty differences for the sake of evolution. Thats only way humanity will ever learn to work together. Lets first learn to accept one another however extreme and then lets work together for a better future.

Acceptance is key.

I prefer tolerance. It is all anyone has a right to expect from anyone else on anything.

Acceptance conveys approval, and there are some things I simply cannot approve of while understanding that people are free to be that way.

Hence, tolerance.

originally posted by: onequestion
Lets first learn to accept one another however extreme and then lets work together for a better future.

I try, but...
There are some people who do things I simply can not condone, sorry future. :/

Lets first learn to accept one another however extreme and then lets work together for a better future.

a reply to: onequestion

How does that work if somebody is determined to kill you

a reply to: onequestion

Acceptance implies a quiescent state of mind that is closed to more data. That split second when you know you are going to die and you go with it.

A number of logical conclusions are needed before you can "accept" the words and actions of others. The biggest is the presence (or lack of) of an existential threat. The next is a virtual threat that may manifest in the future.

Bottom line, you can't logically accept actions that harm you, takes away food or shelter or reduces your prospects of reproduction. Those are biological imperatives. Can't accept. Don't even try. Accepting is akin to faith, which has a very limited biological value.

The best I can offer is to watch, listen, and reserve judgement.

a reply to: onequestion

I agree with you. Acceptance is a strange word, too, however. Saying, "I accept you", kind of implies that there's something less-than-pleasant about you, but I accept you, anyway. It's really similar to tolerance.

Tolerance used to be buzz word in some marginalized communities hoping to gain equality — until people started to realize that “tolerating” something or someone was not a particularly favorable stance.

You tolerate mosquitoes if you live in Iowa.

You tolerate humidity if you live in D.C.

You tolerate your neighbor’s lawn mower on Saturday morning, your neighbor’s kid’s stereo on Saturday night, and your neighbor, when he or she wants to talk to you in the front yard.

You tolerate things that are unpleasant, but that you must be forced to endure. Once we figured this out, we went for “acceptance.” It sounds a lot better, but is it really that much different?

Tolerance vs Acceptance

I know a lot of people "tolerate" and many "accept" those who are different from them. I have pretty much dropped both ideas and I just love people.

But I believe we are all connected. So, no matter how insane or outrageous someone is, there is humanity with in them and I can find love for them. Man times, it's in the form of compassion for the PERSON, while I totally disapprove of the ACTIONS. I guess a Christian would say, "love the sinner, hate the sin". That's what I strive for. Not acceptance, but love.

I dunno.

There are some things I won't ever accept. And I know there are people with even lower thresholds.

I like the ideas of acceptance and tolerance and love, but prefer logic and knowledge first, as the path to both getting to acceptance and the root cause of some pretty fundamental issues that we face.

Blind anything...trust, belief, acceptance...is a huge red flag to me.


ETA: But I'd be on board with less judgement and bigotry straight off.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Well lets try and find a starting point like not allowing a small personal difference to get in the way of an idea.

a reply to: onequestion

Do you think the small ones do get in the way? I find more issue with the deeply rooted or larger ones.

I disagree. I think we should continue to tolerate each other as much as possible, but if the beliefs of a particular group stray too far from social acceptance, then then should no longer be tolerated or accepted, and the full weight of human society should fall on them.

I think it's foolish to sit by an "accept" a culture that is actively trying to destroy and disrupt Earth society as it has evolved to function over the last 6,000 years.

I think if we all learn to accept each others minor differences a little more maybe wed have a little less extremism to deal with. The crux of the issue is intolerance.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I disagree. I think we should continue to tolerate each other as much as possible, but if the beliefs of a particular group stray too far from social acceptance, then then should no longer be tolerated or accepted, and the full weight of human society should fall on them.

I think it's foolish to sit by an "accept" a culture that is actively trying to destroy and disrupt Earth society as it has evolved to function over the last 6,000 years.

The problem with that is what you might consider disruptive and destructive someone else might not. Down that path lies total conformity, and I'm not comfortable. There a the basic unalienable rights and so long as what you do and how you live does not infringe on those ... hands off.

I recently wrote an admission on this very topic which I will share here...

I use to concentrate my energies in the evil of this world, wars that kill innocent children, gmo's that increase birth defects, a society ruled by profit instead of love. But I now know that by concentrating my energies in evil I was empowering that evil.
I will now try to empower love and kindness. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge evil. It instead means by empowering love, I give it more energy to overcome the evil in this world. I am the frog trying to catch the butterfly within.

By empowering love I am now doing my part to try to correct the universal soul.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem with that is what you might consider disruptive and destructive someone else might not. Down that path lies total conformity, and I'm not comfortable. There a the basic unalienable rights and so long as what you do and how you live does not infringe on those ... hands off.

Quite true. There are still many people who think Nazism is the way to go. Genocide? Sure. You just go ahead and magnanimously accept these people and what they believe. See where it gets you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I prefer tolerance. It is all anyone has a right to expect from anyone else on anything.

Acceptance conveys approval, and there are some things I simply cannot approve of while understanding that people are free to be that way.

Hence, tolerance.

I'm in 100% total agreement with your statement. Acceptance implies ascent to behaviors or beliefs or both that I wouldn't give house room. I can tolerate a lot, particularly at a distance as long and as long as it doesn't impinge on me or my life, so for me, even tolerance is conditional. There are simply far to many empowered but entirely screwed up people on this planet.

I don't even care if we could reach the level of acceptance of each others point of view, or philosophical view point. I could be quite content if we could reach the point of civility with one another in the discourse between persons, groups, and nations.

Civility. Wouldn't that be a step up.

a reply to: onequestion



+



=

LOL

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You just go ahead and magnanimously accept these people and what they believe. See where it gets you.

There's a HUGE difference between accepting the PEOPLE and accepting what they believe. I don't accept or even respect MOST of the beliefs people have, but the people themselves - that's a different story.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem with that is what you might consider disruptive and destructive someone else might not. Down that path lies total conformity, and I'm not comfortable. There a the basic unalienable rights and so long as what you do and how you live does not infringe on those ... hands off.

Inalienable rights are a myth. You are only afforded the rights by the society in which you live within. If you do not live within a society, your "inalienable rights" don't mean anything.

Acceptance of what? Compassion or apathy ?

Acceptance allows but what to allow? People harming each other or being considerate of each other?


Accept the good/compassionate reject evil/psychopath destructive behavior.