INFJ predisposition to ethno-nationalism?

Flavus Aquila said:
I'm not qualified to give instructions on emotions, however I can see the inconsistencies they bring into emotional lives.

I would have thought that introverted thinkers would seek consistency in how tolerance is dispensed: either one is tolerant of diversity, or one is not.

I'm ambivalent about people's tolerance levels because tolerance is a passive disposition, and isn't as important as good manners and equity of treatment in one's active engagement.

I don't understand how the dynamic functions (like it happened here) that tolerance is the motto for condemnation.

I'm guessing that emotion was the driver of dispensing with cherryhead... but it wasn't explicit. What was explicit was a contradictory message: we do not tolerate intolerance.

I think it would have made more sense to say: we hate white nationalists.

I don't understand the apparent reluctance to express the emotion, and the comfort (indeed almost gleeful comfort) with expressing self contradiction.

As an non-empathic community member, it makes it so difficult to understand what triggers you all occasionally, because you all don't communicate the feeling, and the reasoning that is communicated doesn't make sense.

That's why I object to your saying that you're happy to be part of a community that is intolerant of intolerant individuals. Not everyone here cares whether people are intolerant... I for one don't care that many of you are intolerant. I just can't understand what is driving it.
Click to expand...

I really agree with you. I think in cases such as this it is implied that we are always intolerant of white nationalists. The minority hate groups are given more leeway to speak before they are done away with, at least that is how the story goes. I don't remember seeing anti-white sentiment on the forum.

On one hand I am surprised that your posts showed that you didn't foresee how this would end, on the other I wonder if it was a self fulfilling prophecy that he would go down in flames with his first thread.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I'm not qualified to give instructions on emotions, however I can see the inconsistencies they bring into emotional lives.

I would have thought that introverted thinkers would seek consistency in how tolerance is dispensed: either one is tolerant of diversity, or one is not.

I'm ambivalent about people's tolerance levels because tolerance is a passive disposition, and isn't as important as good manners and equity of treatment in one's active engagement.

I don't understand how the dynamic functions (like it happened here) that tolerance is the motto for condemnation.

I'm guessing that emotion was the driver of dispensing with cherryhead... but it wasn't explicit. What was explicit was a contradictory message: we do not tolerate intolerance.

I think it would have made more sense to say: we hate white nationalists.

I don't understand the apparent reluctance to express the emotion, and the comfort (indeed almost gleeful comfort) with expressing self contradiction.

As an non-empathic community member, it makes it so difficult to understand what triggers you all occasionally, because you all don't communicate the feeling, and the reasoning that is communicated doesn't make sense.

That's why I object to your saying that you're happy to be part of a community that is intolerant of intolerant individuals. Not everyone here cares whether people are intolerant... I for one don't care that many of you are intolerant. I just can't understand what is driving it.
Click to expand...

It's hard to rationalize because it's a paradox. If the tolerant tolerate the intolerant then the tolerant are condoning the ideals and philosophies of the intolerant.


"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” -Karl Popper
 
the said:
I really agree with you. I think in cases such as this it is implied that we are always intolerant of white nationalists. The minority hate groups are given more leeway to speak before they are done away with, at least that is how the story goes. I don't remember seeing anti-white sentiment on the forum.

On one hand I am surprised that your posts showed that you didn't foresee how this would end, on the other I wonder if it was a self fulfilling prophecy that he would go down in flames with his first thread.
Click to expand...
I foresaw it and commented in my fist reply "don't get banned".

What I didn't foresee... and so it was sort of experimental, was whether engaging the Ti verbalisation-response could affect the outcome, or affect the rationalising, or at least shift the response from the irrational rationalising towards direct (and honest) emotional expression.

I think it's clear that emotions were driving the condemnation, which the new member was helpless to appease despite almost pleading to be able to delete his post. It was also more or less clear that the stated rationalisations were impossible to engage with in a way which would force greater logical consistency (which is very noteworthy, because introverted thinking is primarily concerned with logical consistency). The rationalisations imo cannot be seen as anything other than a rallying catch-cry, which didn't actually engage with the perceived offense at all.

What I'm hoping now is for someone open up about what was the basic/fundamental trigger for the emotional offense (it was not intolerance in cherryhead), and describe whether this offense could have been resolved without the new member being pushed into a corner and committing a banable offense.

I'm also curious to know what would have happened if the new member refused to react and had continued on the forum... would the emotional offense ever be extinguished by time?
 
I feel like it goes without saying that a person who claims to be tolerant of everything, is also intolerant of intolerance. Otherwise we'd have to go through this whole explanation about how we are so tolerant of everything ... but we are intolerant of intolerance because blah blah blah.... and then a we'd always need to use confusing/annoying disclaimers when we are just trying to get a general idea across. It's implied, come on now.
 
acd said:
All things in moderation. Including tolerance. You have to draw the line somewhere. Not all ideas are valid. Racism or "ethno-nationalism" is as stupid as denying climate change and being and anti-vaccination. At some point, your bullshit ideas start effecting other people. I think people should be free to spout their controversial beliefs, but then best be prepared to face opposition without running away like a bitch. Sorry this wasn't a safe space for your ethno-nationalism, OP..
Click to expand...
I think people seldom really believe the racism they might spout and amplify. I suspect it is an attempt to deal with emotional trauma within a rationalised framework.

Had hoped to speak the member through racial elitism down to cultural elitism... then down to personal elitism... and then try to get at the trigger for the complicated defense mechanism.

I almost got there with Elegant Winter, but alas. I'll probably have to wait for the next racist to show up.... it's something I wouldn't try offline because most people struggling to figure out if they are actually racist aren't going to discuss it without anonymity.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I foresaw it and commented in my fist reply "don't get banned".

What I didn't foresee... and so it was sort of experimental, was whether engaging the Ti verbalisation-response could affect the outcome, or affect the rationalising, or at least shift the response from the irrational rationalising towards direct (and honest) emotional expression.

I think it's clear that emotions were driving the condemnation, which the new member was helpless to appease despite almost pleading to be able to delete his post. It was also more or less clear that the stated rationalisations were impossible to engage with in a way which would force greater logical consistency (which is very noteworthy, because introverted thinking is primarily concerned with logical consistency). The rationalisations imo cannot be seen as anything other than a rallying catch-cry, which didn't actually engage with the perceived offense at all.

What I'm hoping now is for someone open up about what was the basic/fundamental trigger for the emotional offense (it was not intolerance in cherryhead), and describe whether this offense could have been resolved without the new member being pushed into a corner and committing a banable offense.

I'm also curious to know what would have happened if the new member refused to react and had continued on the forum... would the emotional offense ever be extinguished by time?
Click to expand...

I didn't want him to get banned, I was happy to have a dissenting opinion on the forum. But the words I chose to warn him were not the best, and then I just gave in when he took issue with the peace/ harmony and let him have it. I should have gave him more leeway to dig a deeper hole for himself.

A trigger for me is when I know someone is about to get into trouble and I know it's about to happen but I can't stop it. I don't think anyone's reputation can fully recover if they come into a forum and their first impression is that they are a part of a separatist movement. Especially with long term members.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I think people seldom really believe the racism they might spout and amplify. I suspect it is an attempt to deal with emotional trauma within a rationalised framework.

Had hoped to speak the member through racial elitism down to cultural elitism... then down to personal elitism... and then try to get at the trigger for the complicated defense mechanism.

I almost got there with Elegant Winter, but alas. I'll probably have to wait for the next racist to show up.... it's something I wouldn't try offline because most people struggling to figure out if they are actually racist aren't going to discuss it without anonymity.
Click to expand...
Fight the good fight.
 
the said:
I didn't want him to get banned, I was happy to have a dissenting opinion on the forum. But the words I chose to warn him were not the best, and then I just gave in when he took issue with the peace/ harmony and let him have it. I should have gave him more leeway to dig a deeper hole for himself.

A trigger for me is when I know someone is about to get into trouble and I know it's about to happen but I can't stop it. I don't think anyone's reputation can fully recover if they come into a forum and their first impression is that they are a part of a separatist movement. Especially with long term members.
Click to expand...
It is a strong temptation to pile on when a stranger shows up confident and falls into shit.

I wonder if subconsciously I was trying to make the situation worse, by trying to make it better.... when deep down I knew it wouldn't work and possibly backfire.

I guess I'll be laying awake for a few hours wondering about that one.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
It is a strong temptation to pile on when a stranger shows up confident and falls into shit.

I wonder if subconsciously I was trying to make the situation worse, by trying to make it better.... when deep down I knew it wouldn't work and possibly backfire.

I guess I'll be laying awake for a few hours wondering about that one.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were empathizing/sympathizing with him.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
describe whether this offense could have been resolved without the new member being pushed into a corner and committing a banable offense.

I'm also curious to know what would have happened if the new member refused to react and had continued on the forum... would the emotional offense ever be extinguished by time?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I wasn't offended by the post. I figured current events might have led him to those feelings and then I was wanting to walk him through where I think he could have walked away at least considering civic nationalism instead of white nationalism.

The first thing I was going to tell him was that he wasn't a bad person. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't actually racist. I think my time would have been a waste after reading him use the words he used before I had a chance to revisit the thread, though. It's more work than the time I have to give it.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
If I was, it was at the subconscious level. I sometimes try to help misfits when I have no reason to do so that I can perceive.
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate?
Underdog sponsor?
Taking your own vulnerability, placing it in others, and protecting it there?

Anyway, I would have liked to have witnessed the OP attempt to properly rationalise his feelings (impossible?)

Then to see if our *rational opinions would have caused him to review/amend his.

Moral crusaders always take the fun out things :(

I think if the subject is remotely controversial, you sensitive types should just naturally not involve yourselves.

:p
 
Last edited:
the said:
I feel like it goes without saying that a person who claims to be tolerant of everything, is also intolerant of intolerance. Otherwise we'd have to go through this whole explanation about how we are so tolerant of everything ... but we are intolerant of intolerance because blah blah blah.... and then a we'd always need to use confusing/annoying disclaimers when we are just trying to get a general idea across. It's implied, come on now.
Click to expand...
"Tolerance" is just such a shit justification for what's really wanted, which can't even be used coherently.

"Tolerance" is the action of passively bearing something heavy, or unpleasant. Tolo/tolerare is Latin for "carry/bear". Are minorities heavy, unpleasant burdens be endured?

Perhaps it's conformity that's sought. "Conform to our values, or leave".
 
Flavus Aquila said:
"Tolerance" is just such a shit justification for what's really wanted, which can't even be used coherently.

"Tolerance" is the action of passively bearing something heavy, or unpleasant. Tolo/tolerare is Latin for "carry/bear". Are minorities heavy, unpleasant burdens be endured?

Perhaps it's conformity that's sought. "Conform to our values, or leave".
Click to expand...

Yes they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top