You tolerate pain in so much as to allow the ego of this neighbour, but not at the sacrifice of your own ego. You do not submit to this person's view of your ethnic group; however stark this person's beliefs may be, you do not submit to anger or rage, leave that sort of action to governers and politicians. This sort of data is better scribed by machine than man.

Cockroaches will always exist. So long as they stay under the fridge and only come out at night, we might tolerate them. But when they are brave and getting braver, we break out the poison and start stomping on heads.

I'm a white male that looks like your classic "conservative." So I'm used to all the feelers that are put out, you know, to test and see if I'm "one of the guys." I try to nip it in the bud, and most of the stupid people are smart enough to take a hint, scurrying back into the darkness when the light comes on. But, just as they may "take notes" about me, so do I about them.

The trick is, when is it time to go hunting? Society protects the stupid people too. And, of course, some folks need help with their infestation. We had a Civil War and a World War over that. I'd hate to see that happen again. How far do I go in making sure it does not? Hmmm? The eternal question. First the came for . . .

To some degree or other the neighbor is all of us - or must of us, or me anyway. I am quite sure I am better than many of my neighbors, and can supply and satisfy myself with proofs both at need and as entertainment. But I am aware of the short-comings in all of this and so make myself civilized, which is something else I find I am superior in. But the fact is that I endlessly find that my neighbors are my equals and my superiors. Just like on TPF. Oh, there are exceptions (and you-all know who you are). But I find that the companionship of equals and superiors is far the better. And so that is how I choose to view most people. The French, I believe, call it vive la différence, although mine a general field of appreciation and there's somewhat narrower.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for?

The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Ignore them. Yes, this is easy to say, but could be difficult to do. It depends on how attenuated the community is regarding ethnic issues. Remember, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise. — NOS4A2

A negligible price to pay.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? — BitconnectCarlos

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.

If we're going by the cockroach example, I wouldn't want them around my house whether I saw them or not. I just wouldn't want any cockroaches near my place of dwelling ever.

The trick is, when is it time to go hunting? — James Riley

I'm happy going hunting if by hunting we mean doxxing - revealing the neighbor's beliefs to an employer or other members of the community. I'd imagine if the scenario described in the OP were to exist it would be like a min-Cold war in the community where there is clear conflict and hatred, but none of it being open hostility.

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority. — baker

Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones?

Ignore them. Yes, this is easy to say, but could be difficult to do. It depends on how attenuated the community is regarding ethnic issues. Remember, "Why can't we all just get along?" — jgill

The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise. — NOS4A2

Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.

To some degree or other the neighbor is all of us - or must of us, or me anyway. I am quite sure I am better than many of my neighbors, and can supply and satisfy myself with proofs both at need and as entertainment. — tim wood

Ok, but do you believe that you're better than your neighbors because of your ethnic groups or just because your neighbors suck? One of these might make sense, the other does not make sense under any context.

If we're going by the cockroach example, I wouldn't want them around my house whether I saw them or not. I just wouldn't want any cockroaches near my place of dwelling ever. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, people in hell want ice water. It ain't about want. Like I said, they are going to be with us whether we like it or not.

I'm happy going hunting if by hunting we mean doxxing - revealing the neighbor's beliefs to an employer or other members of the community. I'd imagine if the scenario described in the OP were to exist it would be like a min-Cold war in the community where there is clear conflict and hatred, but none of it being open hostility. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, cancel culture (aka consequences, aka ostracization, aka doxxing) are all viable forms of social engineering, better than the simmering pot, and more likely to stave off an explosion. That is keeping them under the fridge. The OP asked what to do with them and I believe that is how it done.

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority.

Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.

I wouldn’t ignore him. I just wouldn’t expel him or sanction him for what he believes, just as I wouldn’t let the community expel the minority, and for the same reasons. Rather I would attempt to foster conversation between opposing parties.

I am actually one of the very few native residents (UK) in my predominately foreign neighbourhood so for me this is an interesting question.

If someone actually said this to a neigbour 'round where I live they would not survive for long :sweat:

And to be honest, although I would never resort to physicial violence, there would be colourful language said by me if I had a balls-out racist say that to my neighbours (lovely family from Pakistan). You see, although there is such a thing as a right to free speech and personal beliefs, etc. "as a community", as OP says, we should protect each other from hate like this.

Perhaps I believe this because I live in a country where racist speech receives less protection than in the United States of America.

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.
— baker

Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor.

Not necessarily because your old neighbors would become racists, but because they don't want trouble.
People generally tend to blame victims and those that are in any way in trouble, and so they want to get rid of such disliked, troubled people.

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority. — NOS4A2

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

I wouldn't enable racist behaviour but I would tolerate someone I knew had racist views, provided that they acted in a respectable manner.

It's better if everyone is playing a game of soccer with each other and tolerating or keeping these matters off to the side rather than declaring war on each other because of a difference in opinion. Deescalation, tolerance and empathy are key, focus on common ground rather than emphasise the differences.

I think what makes racism truly poisonous is not the views themselves but the intolerance, escalation and hate. If at a community gathering, the racist in the experiment was acting respectfully and courteously, without bringing up his racist views and others were calling him a cockroach and telling him to GTFO and threatening to dox him, I'd be siding with the racist. Such antagonistic behaviour isn't productive.

It's fine to say that there should be no more racist comments but that's about it.

What shouldn't be tolerated are actions that cause harm and disruption, things we can stop and make better. Domestic violence, animal abuse, child abuse, gang violence and so on. A racist comment, speech or joke - don't tolerate that but something like expulsion from the community should come after they've refused to stop and it's the last resort.

A racist comment, speech or joke - don't tolerate that — Judaka

What does that look like, not tolerating racist comments, speech or jokes?
Can you give an example?

The family who just moved in will learn that there are some people who want them dead and others who will expel them if they say nasty things. What a jolly neighbourhood. Bet they wish they'd stayed where they were.

I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor. — baker

In my imagined scenario, the community as a whole is not racist. The racist is in the minority with his views. I also purposefully didn't specify which race/ethnic group was being targeted and what the race/ethnic group of the bigot was. In doing so, I seek to make this a more abstract question about how a community ought to deal with this type of matter.

Rebuking or expressing disapproval - depends on the context. To not tolerate means to act, which act depends on the person.

Of course. I still think that normally, the community will, in effect, side with the racist and expel the target of racism (as long as the target is in the minority). Again, the community needn't be racist, they're simply driven by not wanting trouble in the neighborhood. And the source of the trouble is the target of racism, not the racist.

Rebuking or expressing disapproval - depends on the context. To not tolerate means to act, which act depends on the person. — Judaka

That means risking their revenge. How do you justify taking such a risk?

Some people might not take that risk and that's fine, instead, they just stop interacting with that person. It is unlikely that anyone will get physical or vandalise your stuff just because you called them out on a racist comment. It's true though, if I was dealing with a group of potentially violent young men, I might not think the risk is worth it, I would rather avoid a fight if I'm in a circumstance where one could occur and so I may refrain from saying anything. I've never been in such a situation where I felt I was taking a big risk to say my opinion but if someone was, it's understandable if they don't take that risk. Whatever shape that risk may take.

I've never been in such a situation where I felt I was taking a big risk to say my opinion — Judaka

Heaven help you!

This conversation was something special.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? — BitconnectCarlos

Assuming there is no law that would govern on what the community is allowed to do, we don't expel them or punish physically because that neighbor didn't do "physical" damage to anyone, he just thinks what he thinks.

This individual like anyone else builds an image of itself in his life, as such he already expelled himself.
If the community is majorly against his views his punishment will be present in the community by social distancing which isn't pleasant, otherwise he wins.

How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

I think by taking the kind and weight of "damage" into account:

Saying you will do something is not the same as actually doing it. (the kind damage)

Saying to kill someone is not the same saying to demolish that person's car. (the weight of damage)

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation.

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

Blame the victim for what?

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Ideas and views aren't a crime, actions and instigating others to act might be.

But anyway. So you have your neighborhood Nazi. Not just the odd crazy or the recycling-Nazi complaining that you recycle your trash improperly, nope, but a genuine Nazi that believes that your existence in the World is harmful. These kinds of racists are rare.

What would be more typical would be a neighbor that would say that you don't have the right to live specifically there where you are now living. Go live somewhere else. And here's the interesting question: leave out the obvious racism that you have depicted of the neighbor, when do people start to think that here you and your living in that town is really the problem?

What if you are a Jewish settler in the West Bank and the neighbor a Palestinian? Or you are a Moroccan in Western Sahara and your neighbor a Sahrawi?

People still have these ideas of some people being the "rightful owners" of some area, whereas others are occupiers, invaders. Even if the "invasion" has happened ten, hundred or thousands of years ago. Is it wrong to think like that?

Blame the victim for what? — NOS4A2

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation. — Hanover

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist?

Well, I hope you don't learn the hard way how risky it can be to speak your mind.

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist? — baker

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me, that doesn't provide a basis for their expulsion from my presence. I don't know that the object of the law ought to be peace and harmony generally but only that it should be a demand that a certain level of minimal conduct be adhered to. I emphasize the word "conduct" because in the OP, the only violation I could decipher was a depraved heart. Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.