When is intolerant behavior aggression worthy of response?

Intolerance is a sure sign that you are an individual who embraces group think. As commonly defined, “refusal to accept differences: unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own.” The question to be asked, when is intolerant behaviour aggression worthy of response. 64086_4644475863465_207745131_n

Personally when those I call friend make their intolerance known, I will often question them directly. The answer they give or stance they take tends to show me if these are indeed individuals I desire to continue being friends with. If they act out with passive aggression, the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, hostile jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible, I will almost always write them off. After all direct aggression is at least honest, whereas passive aggressive behaviour shows a weakness of character that disallows the potential for additional friendship, at least with myself. 20130114-211936.jpg

Intolerance makes itself known in many ways, over the years I have experienced most ways possible. From jabs at peoples weight, color, clothing type and more, intolerance rears its head quite often among humans. I can be very intolerant, especially of fakes, liars and statists. This does not mean that I do not have statist friends, simply that I have very defined limits which I do not feel the need to cross. Unlike the passive aggressive approaches of people like Ian Freeman, Stefan Molyneux, George Donnelly and the like who use others emotions to do their work for them versus simply speaking directly to the source of their angst. While they have done some good for some I am sure, they regularly use their steadfast followers to lash out at people instead of simply bringing it to them in person. 20130113-191018.jpg

When problems surface I address the individual directly, the most often used response is a fall-back into petty name calling and whining to others versus simply talking it out like adults. Stefan refuses to communicate, even though he has no problem leading his gullible followers into fits of passionate attacks against his perceived enemies. Ian has done the same thing with myself, and sadly the result has been yet more individuals I believed were friends siding with their messiah of the moment versus using reason. Intolerance, both of these individuals have exhibited intolerant behaviours that exceed at times the behaviours of those they supposedly “protest” against.

So here is my suggested solution, take it as you will.

  • Use reason, telling or alluding that someone is not a “whole” person because of their skin color, race, ethnicity or even status of their penis or vagina and or sexual preference shows a distinct lack of personal character. If someone was born, OR changed before they could choose, how is it that persons fault what they are? Therefore the numerous stupid little comments with regards to these things shows a lack of character that I personally refuse to have in my life. Mass Grave
  • Personal choice, everyone exhibits personal choice, I like women with booties and definitely enjoy ladies who embrace their sexuality and are comfortable with who they are. I will NOT tell someone else they are shit or less of a person because they dont match my personal preference, and I DO NOT want to sleep with every skeezer that drops in.

So when does intolerance rate a response as having breached the aggression principle I adhere to. As I defined it, after all I am an individual. “Do not be an aggressor against anyone or anyones property, if someone acts with aggression against you or your property, defend yourself or your property. I also believe quite strongly in the idea of self ownership, meaning my life and my decisions are mine alone and I should be allowed to make those without interference from anyone else.” 20121231-185006.jpgIf someone initiates aggression against me be it verbal, written or physical I will respond as I see fit to put a stop to it. I do not expect others to follow this approach. I will not for instance shoot someone for verbally assaulting me, I may however, request that they apologize. And unfortunately, since the age of the duel is no more, I will simply part ways if they refuse.

What say you and why?


Free the mind and the body will follow.



About Jesse Mathewson

Jesse Mathewson is the author of the popular blog, jessetalksback.com and provides commentary to many varied places based on a background that includes education in criminal justice, history, religion and even insurgency tactics and tactical training. His current role in his community is as an organizer of sorts and a preacher of community solidarity and agorism. He also runs Liberty Practical Training, a self defense school specializing in the practical applications of defensive approaches versus the theoretical. As an agorist, voluntaryist and atheist his life is seen as crazy and wild by many, though once they get to know him most realize he is a bluntly honest individual who will give you the shirt off his back if he believes it is necessary to help you. Very simple, "That which is voluntary between all individuals involved is always right, if it is not voluntary, it is always wrong."
This entry was posted in Agorism, Atheism, Authored by Jesse Mathewson, Voluntaryism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to When is intolerant behavior aggression worthy of response?

  1. Hogeye Bill says:

    Your personal definition of “aggression” (as simply “forceful, hostile or attacking” conduct) is at odds with most libertarians’ NAP based definition. It seems that you would violate the NAP, if I read you right. Therefore, I do not wish to be around you. I am intolerant of those who openly claim they would initiation force against me if I did something they consider hostile.


    • I use commonly accepted definitions not speciality approaches designed by those who desire to “lead” the “liberty movement”, if you can show me how my definition is wrong versus simply using vague approaches I would gladly do my best to explain the why’s.

      Maybe you could write and article for the contest? A chance to win some great prizes!


  2. Pingback: Are all military persons and police really evil? | Jesse Talks Back

  3. RedDesilets says:

    Yeah I recently parted ways with people I’ve known since high school because I called out their cognitive dissonance and was pointing something painful for them to realize: they aren’t victims. But people enjoy their victimhood since it brings about all sorts of butt kissing attention. I was upset when it happened but as the days have gone past, I don’t feel it anymore. I don’t have time in my life for people that insist they are victims and refuse to listen to reason…


    • Exactly, while they may enjoy playing the “conquering victim” card I simply do not have time to hold their “widdle handsies”. Understand of course I will always be a shoulder for friends, however, the difference being that friends will also be a shoulder for you. They reciprocate, whereas the constant victim uses, uses and discards without ever reciprocating. In fact in most cases the “victim” will generate some “problem” and attempt to blame everything on you because as the victim they are never at fault.

      Well said Red!


      • RedDesilets says:

        Thanks… there was reciprocity which made the break harder but that’s okay. The main person in this “group” initiated the break up of our friendship and the others were coming to her “aid” and treating me as if I was some sort of bully so I booted them from my circle of friends. I mean, geez, really… I hated middle and high school and don’t want to relive those days and all that drama. Buh-bye! I have lots of friends that we all know we don’t agree on everything but have the mutual respect as individual human beings to not treat each other like crap.


  4. rabiyya khan says:

    thankyou for following Globe Scope. i have a question here. isn’t intolerance healthy sometimes? as in, being intolerant towards nonsense behaviour, being intolerant towards any miscarriage of justice etc etc


    • It is, however, as defined in the article when someone is incapable of even recognizing that others lives differ from ours is that ever good?


      • rabiyya khan says:

        you certainly have a point there. but don’t u think that under some circumstances, (i am not saying that we should always adopt an inflexible attitude), accepting these differences from others and even then, holding your stance is a good thing?? its my opinion and doesn’t have to be necessarily true, but i think that u SHOULD be intolerant where necessary. other than that, i agree with you that unnecessary intolerance and aggressiveness is quite damaging


        • Absolutely, as of course it is my opinion else wise. After all, as individuals should we all think the same way about everything?

          I guess my point here is not that we should be tolerant of everything, but that we should understand that our approach is not the only one. This is why I utilized the common definition for the word, intolerant.

          You and I know that there are many paths, however, many people have been taught there is only their path. This is why I see rabid intolerance, especially of little things, as an indicator that the individual affected is someone who supports group think, state.


Comments are closed.