Why is it soo hard for many people to tolerate other people in other places being different?

[monorprise]

Why is it soo hard for many people to tolerate other people in other places being different?

I mean what is so wrong with the idea of agreeing to disagree across borders?

Yes I know its a big question all the great wars in history both military and political might come down to this question.

But most of them of the had some underlining common resource dispute, the remainder perhaps the most condemn of all conflicts were simply motivated by the power lust of leaders insatiable desire to rule all men.

But why do we do it? Why do we who live in State 1 care that someone who lives in State 2 far away lives under a particular policy or has a particular value?

[Aerissa_Jade]

Great question, all I can really say is people like to control others it seems. I grew up rural and have lived rural most my life and rural people don't really care about the city people... until they start passing laws that will make life harder for rural people.

So when liberals say they want ten dollars a gallon gas tax to encourage people to drive less or take mass transit and I point out, we have no mass transit and we can't drive less, cause I live 40 miles from town. They say, not their problem that is mine because I choose to live here.

Well now I hate Democrats forever and want them all dead, cause they are now FIGHTING to make my life harder... and have publicly stated it.

If people would think of others and not try to make lives harder, then people could get along a lot better... I mean if they really want ten dollars a gallon gas tax, they should put it in the big cities and leave the rural people alone.

Same concept with gun control, laws for big cities don't work in the country.

As for different cultures, I think people get along pretty good as long as they are peaceful... but even the US government has problems, like Biden pushing Saudi Arabia for reforms and stuff... like so what, let them run their country how they want and we can all get along.

You question though is all about control and trying to control others who don't fit into their mold, trying to change them rather than accept them and work with them.

[MikeInHawaii]

I think I only disagree on one detail. Gun control laws don’t work too well in the big cities either. People in the country would think nothing of it if I had a gun on my hip. When I lived in Atlanta or Memphis, I needed a gun on my hip!

[Aerissa_Jade]

@MikeInHawaii True but libs think they work, so they can live in their delusional world of feeling safer. Just like right now how they are soo concerned for mass shootings but they ignore the every day gang gun battles that kill random innocent bystanders.

[MikeInHawaii]

Yep. And they don’t look at mass shootings that have been stoped by CCP holders. Two mass shootings in Alabama have been stopped by men in their seventies. And, a mass shooting in Texas was stopped when about eight members of the congregation opened fire on the shooter.

[monorprise]

This is indeed one of the best answers although It seems to fall a little short of actually being an answer rather than observations the problem.

This observations I am seeing describing examples of this problem well:
1: People like to control other people.
2: People don't know or care about other people's issues caused by said choices.
3: People think their idea of certain values are soo important they must be shared everywhere.

1: Why do people like to control other people?
2: Why don't people care or know how their choices effect other people?
3: Why do people believe their values are so important they must try to compel everyone to sharing them?

[monorprise]

@MikeInHawaii @Aerissa_Jade
I'm willing to believe in theory there is a case for Gun control in the city, because they have otherwise been unable to control the organized crime and they been sold the idea that this might work to reduce the losses.
This likely even seems reasonable to urban people as after all armed police are there to help within 5 minutes or less if you can trust them to show up at all. Which obviously isn't the case as we learned in 2020.

The problem is Rural people due to geography of sheer distances are even in ideal conditions as much as an hour or more away from such help. We either are able and free to handle it ourselves or it will have its way with us.

It may be that the answer to #2 is really most urban people simply don't understand theses realities of life in the country vs city. They are sold by politicians theses big schemes to solve their problems and never hear about the drastic problems it causes for other people if imposed at that level.

Prior to the 1964 Federal "court" edict Reynolds v. Sims Our States like the Federal Government had a regionally representative State Senate's who's function was to allow the majority of self-governable regions of the state to object to a policy that would only work well in a minority of them.

After that hypocritical edict our states ended up with 2 different houses of representatives.

This is the legal means by which they allowed to impose these unfair and unworkable polices outside the few areas of the State that they might have actually benefited.

[kikissss]

I think those are closed minded people! They see the work black and white and don’t acknowledge the gray areas and beautiful people from other places with diferente cultures!

[Ill_made_Knight]

Being a white guy in Texas, it seems like most everybody is OK with people being different until they come to THIS sideof the border, and then most of the upset happens because some politician tells peopletobe afraid of having their jobs taken by somebody that was born somewhere else etc. etc. AND haven't had much interaction with people from that different culture.
I've worked with lots and lots of people from many different countries South of the border with the full scale of social interactions...
I'm usually excited at the opportunity to see things a different way.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Thanks for MHG

[Chazmatazz269]

The belief that we are “right” is likely intrinsic to our nature. It actually contributes to xenophobia. If another person or group of people can live SO differently from us and be happy, healthy, and productive, then we’d rather destroy them than admit we not be right about everything.

[monorprise]

This is a interesting proposition, which suggest it comes down to our knowledge of their difference being a threat to us, not so much the difference itself.

[Chazmatazz269]

Not a threat to our lives and livelihoods. Only a threat to our egos. We’d destroy someone rather than admit we might be wrong. This is pervasive. For a time, DNA evidence was overturning more convictions than the other way around. Despite DNA being the new gold standard for criminal evidence and widespread knowledge that eyewitnesses are literally the worst kind of evidence, there were victim’s groups protesting the release of wrongly convicted people. They’d rather innocent people remain in prison than admit to being wrong. In some cases, they’d rather an innocent man be executed than admit to being wrong.
Read “Being Wrong” by Kathryn Schultz. It’s incredible the lengths people will go to in order to not face up to simply being wrong.

[KostasKouvalis]

It's just human nature. People feel more comfortable around people who share the same culture and ideology as them. And it all comes down to, everyone thinking THEIR way of life is the RIGHT way. You can't live in harmony with this kind of mentality, and you can't build a successful society, because you have no incentive to work with the other person, because there is no common goal to work towards.

[monorprise]

The real question is why can't you simply respect the borders between you and agree to disagree?

Why do we have to tell other people in other places they must live under the same values and laws as we do in our place?

[monkeynutts]

If you are talking about Russia, it's purely political, Russia's economy is resource dependant on its petroleum and gas resources, it's kinda funny that they were ok with an 8 year long civil war on their doorstep, but as soon as everybody found out Ukraine had resources of their own, Russia launched a full scale invasion.

[monorprise]

Ukraine was long known to have resources the sort much of which she shares with Russia. What Russia has long wanted in the Ukraine was her warm water sea ports. Which is why Russia ruled the Ukraine for significant parts of history.

Thus this war is almost exclusively about the Ukraine's strategic and military resources being aligned with NATO from Putn's point of view against Russia.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah that too. It's all very terrible, I do feel sorry for the Ukrainian people.

[ElementoP]

Because I'm superior, as are my ideas

The rest of you are gay

[monorprise]

This seems to be a common explication, it doesn't address the question of why we must try to force other people in other places to live under the same ideas and values in their place far away that we choose to live in our place.

[ElementoP]

No it does not. I say to each their own

[slatyb]

If those policies are oppressive, we empathize with the oppressed. If you are talking about the various United States, then we are concerned when minority states attempt to impose unpopular policies on the majority.

[monorprise]

@slatyb What is oppression to one group is desirable security to anther. A lot of people find a great many things done in the name of security in California oppressive even thou the majority of Californians feel the acts to be quite necessary and desirable for their security.
Both sides value something the other does not.

Even if you were to know the whole story in Iowa, how is imposing your view upon either side be it to protect a value you share to do anything other than break the system of local democracy both developed to resolve such issues?

In regard to your supposition of a minority of States imposing upon a majority that is quite impossible given the requirement of the house and senate to both agree, unless of course your referring to law making usurpation of the Federal Court unilaterally altering the contract of our consent to be governed.

In which case you speak of a criminal evil that can work both ways. One very much controllable by the elected branches simply refusing to cooperate.

[slatyb]

In the US rural states are somewhat over-represented in the Electoral College and vastly over-represented in the Senate. The 40 million people of California get two votes in the Senate. The 40 million people in the states with the least population get about 40 votes in the Senate. Additionally state legislative districts have been heavily gerrymandered in many states, guaranteeing Republican control of the legislatures and many of the seats in the House of Representatives even though the state is majority Democratic.

Also not all "oppression" is equal. There's the oppression of "you're pregnant and a slave to the fetus" vs. the oppression of "No, you can't have that toy."

[monorprise]

@slatyb As it happens Gerrymandering is rather difficult in small states with so few house seats to work with.

Regardless the senate which cannot be gerrymandered exist to represent the States not the people. This was originally for the propose of protecting the right of the people to vote with their feet as well as their ballots. A critical right even the citizens of the largest state enjoy as California is demonstrating now.

The progressives of the early 20th century make have largely broken this feature of the Constitutional system with the 17th amendment. (Arguably in violation of the limitations of Article 5) but it remains the whole point of the Senate.

The fact that 1 state has as many people as 20 is not relevant, what matters is that they have the are able to govern themselfs independently domestically of the others. This is a question of resources.

The house exist to alone represent the people, it was added to the Federal system out of respect for the fact that the people alone pay the new taxing power.
Nonetheless nothing happens without their consent.

[love_conquers_lust]

Because everyone wants order for themselves. It would be nice if we had infinite resources to expand into, but that’s not the case.

[monorprise]

By order do you mean control or resources?

[Subarugirl]

Because people fear change and fear that which they do not understand

[monorprise]

How does fear of change and what you don't understand have anything to do with the issue of what values and rules other people in other places live under?

Other people in other places have always had different values and lived under different rules.

It is a change that for us to impose our values and rules upon them, why would we not fear that?

[Fuentes]

Screw communism!!