Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy
Let's do a for instance.
Let's say an Asian co-worker is eating their kimchi. I think we can agree it would not be tolerant or in the spirit of diversity to openly spout off about how disgusting you think it smells, or how gross it is to eat something that's rotted. It's what you may think, but you keep it to yourself so as not to offend your co-worker and his cultural identity.
So if you have another co-worker who has different views politically that you find repulsive, think about it like the kimchi. You think it stinks, but have enough respect for your fellow citizen to remain respectful of his beliefs. The manner of delivery is NOT fair game, if you have any real desire for tolerance and diversity.
How much merit an idea has, much like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you determine an idea or belief has no merit, doesn't make it the case. It's like the T-shirt the guy wears on Mythbusters- "I reject your reality and replace it with my own"
|
I respectfully disagree.
If people share a small space in the lunch room, and one brings in something that smells so bad that others can't stand to eat, he should be aware of it. More than likely, he doesn't want to run everyone else out of the room, so if he knows that the aroma is offensive, he can exercise his conscience about the effect his choice has on others. It's better to communicate than to suffer in silence.
If an individual chooses to publicly express an odious idea, it is not being intolerant to disagree, and to disagree publicly. If one's method of delivery is to yell down everyone who disagrees, it's not being intolerant to point out the rudeness of such conduct. We're not likely to find common ground yelling at each other, but we're not likely to find any common ground listening to a monologue either. Disagreement is a healthy form of communication.
Regards,
D-Ray