Tolerance building

If there's one thing Facebook can teach us, it's tolerance.  At least, in my case, that's what's slowly turning out to be true.

If I picked a fight with everyone whose opinions I disagreed with, I'd probably have no friends left, in Facebook or otherwise.   This particular venue for the expression of personal opinions time and again offers up the views of friends that are widely, hugely divergent from mine, and if I took exception to every single one of them, and I started flaming the sources of the opposing views, I'd be neck deep in battle royales.

Which is why what I do now is, I just read posts,  I like those whose views I agree with, and (mostly) politely shut up when I read inflammatory statements.  Better tactic than starting a thread where there is no winner but frustration and exhaustion, and you could just end up wasting your time thinking up more ammo laced with hate and vitriol.

What I've come to realize is there are issues that are more important than others (to me, anyway), and if I have to speak up, it should only be for those issues that are more worthy, the ones that provide my moral compass, the ones that strike a chord with who and what I am.

Lesson learned the hard way, as one casual comment on a post against a lady Senator attracted attacks from the Senator's sister on my intellectual capacity and academic pedigree, hairstyle critiques on other commentators, and threats of deportation from a European country.   It wasn't even me that posted the original post, for Christ's sake.  The discourse became so bizarre that one member of the U.P. Law School community warned that she would bring the matter to the police - in the Netherlands!

So, winnow.  Choose only to engage those that matter.  No reaction to hate posts on celebrity fashion, working out the abs for summer in Boracay, or after sex selfies.  (I probably exercise more discretion in facebook engagement than selecting topics for this column.)

If I do react, then tact is the best armor of choice.  Couch the opposing view in as least offensive a manner as possible, so there is less room for misunderstandings or misinterpretations.  You'd be surprised at how personally contrary statements are received.  So better to sugar coat than to stick to stark, bare bones.

And so what ends up worthy enough to react on?  Corruption in government usually tops my list, or the incompetence of government officials.  (Which is why I should never end up serving the government, as I would be so afraid of being critiqued by my evil twin.)

There's also prejudice and discrimination in all forms, but even on these topics, some restraint has to be exercised in the fashioning of the message so that the message doesn't get lost in the heat.

One time, a friend posted a missive on Mayweather, questioning his manhood due to his refusal to pick up his dainty gloves versus Manny Pacquiao.  The easiest quip: Floyd's surname was transformed to Gayweather.

I had to think about how to react.  Of course I couldn't let it pass.  Hmm.  Should I say something funny like "ouch!"?  Or, something more direct, but still funny, like, "don't compliment the jerk by labeling him "gay"?  I couldn't remember which I picked, but thankfully, the recipient of my reaction immediately understood where I was coming from and apologized.

And I continue to read on, restraining myself from reacting to the mundane and the irritating, getting inured to the inanities that one can encounter, and ultimately, building tolerance.  I think.