Sometimes, we all let something slide based on the situation.

[MineralMan]

Most of us, at one time or another, have said or dome something ugly at a time when we are under a high amount of stress. When that happens, we should be able to expect our friends and others who know us well to shrug that ugly thing off, as long as they know what is causing the stress that makes us act differently than we usually do.

I know I can remember times when that has happened to me. Eventually, I cool down, though, and apologize for my uncharacteristic comment. I try to learn from those situations and attempt to avoid making the same mistake in the future. I also try to cut others some slack when it happens to them. As long as their offensive behavior is not typical of them, I try to assume that something stressful caused the behavior and try not to judge them based on that unusual, uncharacteristic behavior.

On the other hand, if someone's poor behavior is more or less typical of that person, it can become very difficult to just let something slide. Sometimes, an incident just becomes just one too many of similar incidents. When that happens, I can no longer automatically give the behavior a pass, and have to rethink the relationship. It's a difficult decision always.

Forbearance is not unlimited for me or for most people.

[Whisp]

1. Yes, that behaviour IS typical.

Poor performance art if you ask me.

[MineralMan]

3. While a recent thing prompted my post,

the post is a general one. Such situations commonly occur all around us. All too often, we take what is uncharacteristic and make judgments based on that. Politicians, in particular, are often judged on a single comment or vote, for example, even though that action isn't typical of that politician.

It's an error of generalization, and it's something I try to be watchful of in my own reactions.

Had I wanted to address a particular incident, I'd have done that directly. I just wanted to write something about forbearance and the limitations of it.

[mac56]

2. Very well written.

Greetings from snowbound East Central Minnesota.

[MineralMan]

4. Thanks very much for your kind words.

[el_bryanto]

5. Presumably someone who requires a lot of forebearance

will eventually get their 6 posts hidden and will not be able to post for a while.

Bryant

[MineralMan]

6. Yes, that happens on DU. It's infrequent,

and sort of proves that the admins of this site thought carefully when designing that policy. But my post is not just about DU or DU policies. The DU policy is based on the same idea I'm expressing, though: Forbearance. When someone misbehaves, we can reject that misbehavior without rejecting the person who misbehaved. If such misbehavior continues, though, and becomes habitual, there is a point after which we have to take some other action.

But, away from DU, the same thing applies. For example, we all think highly of Senators Warren and Sanders here on DU. However, we don't always like a particular vote they might make in the Senate. Reasonable people look at a vote like that and see that the way they voted might have been based on circumstances we don't understand completely. We don't simply reject them over one vote. Or, at least, we shouldn't

The same applies to President Obama. He does not always act in ways of which we approve. Reasonable people look at the entire situation and try to understand why he acts. Often, the limitations of that office create situations where he must act in the best way available to him, when he cannot act exactly as we wish he would act. Recognizing the limitations of his choices, we dislike a particular action, but do not condemn him as a President, since he has acted in ways we approve of very much on many occasions.

Forbearance. It's a virtue, but one with limitations.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. To he to whom much has been given, much is expected.

nt

[closeupready]

8. +1.

[MineralMan]

9. Very true.

If we expect forbearance, we must give it equally.

[woo me with science]

10. What arrogant, authoritarian garbage.

Citizens have a right to express anger toward politicians. Understanding that is a part of being an adult in the United States of America.

That you would deign to absolve Will or suggest to the community that he needs to apologize or that anyone else needs to offer "forbearance" to him for directing anger at the president is perhaps the creepiest little performance I have ever seen from you here.

This persistent, transparent effort by the propaganda brigade to suggest new rules for political expression, to suggest that those who express political anger are transgressing somehow, to transform a public servant into a King...is creepy and pathetic.

Criticize the President? We should not even be having serious conversations about this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022666913

[MineralMan]

11. I see.

Well, thanks for replying to my thread.

[SixString]

12. +1

[tblue37]

13. One reason I seldom engage in argument is that I know people will

inevitably hear or read what they want to hear or read, regardless of what my words actually say.

MM's post did not say what you have read into it. He was doing what I often do: An incident will get me thinking about stuff *in general*, so I will follow my thoughts to a general conclusion--again, *about things in general*. Then, if I feel so inclined, I will share my conclusions with those I think might find them interesting or provocative.

The post by WP, along with the many pro and con responses, seems to have led MM to consider *his own* reactions to such things (in general) and to consider whether his conclusions might be of general interest on DU.

But he did not mention that WP post, nor did he seem to be concerned with it specifically, except that his musings were initially provoked by the firestorm surroundng that OP by WP.

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks. You're right.

I was not addressing any particular thing or person. After reflection on something that happened here, as you say, I started thinking about how I respond to things, myself. Then, I shared my conclusions. This OP has nothing to do with any individual or post. I have no reservations about replying to particular OPs within the thread itself, and did so in the one you mentioned.

[grasswire]

17. I agree. nt

[theboss]

18. An informed citizen has a right to criticize a leader and should expect a respectful response

An uninformed citizen also has the right to criticize a leader but should expect a derisive response.

Ill-informed ranting should be gently mocked.

[sabrina 1]

20. Excellent response, sometimes I have to ask myself if my memory has failed me at times when

we receive lectures on truth and honesty and the 'right way to behave'.

Then others remind me it has not failed, I actually am seeing what I am seeing, and so are they and are equally stunned

[JoePhilly]

14. Tantrums aren't a course of action that I tolerate.

When I come to the conclusion that the tantrum is a standard part of one's approach to difficult situations, I come to not take that person very seriously.

Some of these folks walk through life using exaggerated bluster and anger as a way to force people into a box. Either you join them now, or something bad is going to happen.

You described how one might act towards them ... accept them as they are and give them a pass, or to rethink the entire relationship. In many cases, by their actions, they are telling you that if you don't join them, they are going to rethink their relationship with you. That's part of what their bluster is about. They are pressuring you to respond, not to the merits, but to their anger and bluster ... and if you don't agree with them ... you have also hurt them by dismissing their anger and bluster.

Personally, I've never responded well to those who use the tantrum technique as a regular part of their interpersonal approach. I don't trust them. They use their blustering as a way to enhance or intensify their argument, often well beyond the actual merits of their argument. Its a gimmick, a ploy.

There is the content of the message, and the tone of the message. If they need to add lots of anger and blustering to their argument, I immediately assume that they know the merits of their argument are weaker than presented, and the bluster is filler.

I find this approach used here on DU. Lots of hair-on-fire bluster. Angry OP titles. Bluster, bluster, bluster.

And if you don't agree, it is you who have attacked them.

[MineralMan]

15. As in all things, taking a little time to look at more than

the immediate thing helps me, at least, to react more thoughtfully. In the case of tantrums or anger, I try hard not to respond immediately, because my reaction will probably be a negative one. By thinking about it for a while, I can evaluate whether or not anger and harsh words are typical for whoever I'm thinking about or if an incident is a transient one.

After thinking, I'm more able to react in a considered way.

That's the ideal. I don't always act ideally, though. It's something to work on always, I think.

[theboss]

19. We all have our own tolerance levels for nonsense

My wife and I adopted three children out of foster care two years ago. In many ways, they are wonderful children. To emerge from their life experience with a positive view of the world is something almost beyond my comprehension.

Still, they were children "in the system" and all three - but the oldest in particular - have learned what gets attention in the system. However, that does not get attention in my home. As such, my already low tolerance for nonsense has been completely depleted.

And so it is on message boards. Ill-informed cries for attention by known prima donnas are not something I have much tolerance for. Where I differ from most - and this is where parenting has been good for me - is that I like to re-direct improper behavior towards proper behavior. What parenting has not done, though, is completely eliminate my sarcastic sense of humor. I probably redirect with a sneer more often than I should.

[Rex]

21. It is good to see so many old time posters, posting again!

We need as many real experts as we can get to explain the ACA! Glad you are on DU3!