#but I don't think any discourse is worth making real people feel upset over

[gayferrari]

one thing I will say is that I think sometime white bloggers (it's me I'm white bloggers) could stand to be quiet for a second on certain topics, and take a cue from people directly affected without speaking over them. especially if it's an ~issue that for you is a thought experiment at the most and it's somebody else's lived reality. no one needs to weigh in on everything. not every topic has to become a blorbo dick off competition

[ilikekidsshows]

About you being harassed by Marinette fans. I don't know if me doing this is weird, but you being open bout that makes me want to open up more too. I've send you 4 anons by now (u probably could already tell they were from one person) because I don't have a miraculous Blog anymore since the hiatus before Destruction because Marinette fans found one of my posts criticizing Marinette's treatment of Cat Noir and her leadership and they went after me for i think almost an entire week. I ended up deleting my blog in panic and fear of it getting worse the more traffic it got amongst Mari stans.

I followed the show and Fandom til now from afar to see if any of my Marinette problems were getting the fixes everyone screamed about season 5 would deliver but I can't say that happened. I wholeheartedly agree that with alot of other people that it only got worse with the doubling down and her gettin less heroic underneath the surface.

So I'm still here and upset that I was bullied out of this fandom for things I was apparently right about to degrees I didn't even knew back then how right I'd end up being....

I found a couple of blogs to follow that share my opinions and you guys have been interwoven alot now so I thought sending anons to dip my toe back into being part of the discourse is a good idea. I hope I didn't cause any Mari stans getting angry at you for it, I've been worried bout that ngl.

I would like to ask bout one of the topics Marinette fans cyberbullied me for but I still think I'm right for questioning:

How much value does Marinette see in being friends with her love interests?

Oc im not doubting that she sees at least some worth in it, but it feels very shallow. Fandom is working the lion's share to take what little canon gives and run with it til they think their fanon is real.

Marinette values friendship, sure, but Zoe is the only love interest of hers for whom that feels right to say

Marinette in Canon has said many times that for her being friends with the one she loves is the worst thing she could possibly imagine. E. g. Psycomedian. And she was rewarded with Adrien being her devoted and desperate prince for her doing probably the most friendship related thing she did in all season 4. She had a basic little convo with him about understanding to have problems and that's where it ended. Where did Marinette ever even try to be rlly Adrien's friend? She said 500x that she's finally gonna put her romance feelings aside for a bit to focus on her job (which I hoped would mean she'd work on her weaknesses in the platonic Ladynoir team dynamic too... Silly me... )

But that never goes anywhere? Weren't Adrien and Kagami the ones literally having been created out of the feeling love or to love someone in particular and even THEY could overwrite their senti programming better than Marinette ever could get over her normal ass feelings for a week? Adrien and Kagami value the friendship with the one they love deeply, is that the difference? That Marinette can't ever move one from loving someone because friendship feels like an awful downgrade and torture to her so she stays the same? What does that say bout her?

Or that Luka and Cat Noir never caused her stalker paranoia to break out that Derision claims she does to protect herself. Why does it only apply to Adrien? And not even Cat Noir, too? In my other anons I brought up how awful I think it is that Marinette seemingly has no interest in leaning anything rlly about the boy underneath Cat Noir's mask, now she barely acts like she remembers that he's real and that they'll one day reveal where he'll then find out how many times she deliberately deceived him with her civilian identity in very hurtful ways.

How does that correspond to her being in love and more important for my question, what does that level of refusal to treat someone like a real person say about her willingness to be Cat's friend? Cause I can't see friendship in Ladynoir anymore. Marinette was the one who killed that in season 4 and then season 5 didn't improve her in much. Friends don't treat each other the way Marinette so easily uses, hurts ignores, silences and deceives Cat Noir without batting an eye.

The only effort she really made was before Kwamis choice. When she thought he was still in love with her and expected that s4 magically caused no damage to his feelings for her. she seemingly thought she could just allow him to dedicate himself to her for an overall easy way to sweep everything under the rug and make him "happy" again without her ever having to really try and do better herself because that was the comfort she was seeking at that time (shoutout to Familyagrestefanblog and erisluna35. I've been paraphrasing them alot and wanted mention that too. Didn't get to write out my own opinion in a while and I agree with them x})

This refusal to face her hurtful actions of s4 quickly developed into her craving for him to give her his easy love and not wanting to take anything less than precisely the endless devotion she wanted from him now. No matter what the price. No matter how much it put him too in danger (what even meant Cat Blanc?), and yet, still no interest in him as a person.

Once she had to take the no, she left and then she never again made a genuine effort in Ladynoir. Any effort to better herself was romance related. Determination may have been the episode where she rlly noticed her changed feelings for him, but she did try earlier than that. But it fully stopped with his no as did her changed feelings vanish as quickly as they showed up. So what does that say about her and how she views their "friendship"?

Season 4 has her already show that she doesn't want Ladynoir to be an actual friendship since she treats him barely better than a magical pet she rarely ever thinks about, which caught her off guard over and over that she isn't being the kindest and adoring person of all time to him. She treats him so much worse than her actual friends and in s5 she isn't trying to build a real connection beyond wanting him to shower her in his devotion and love.

What season 5 shows bout Marinette's view of the Ladynoir friendship is in my most generous reading her not getting to hide behind any romantic feelings from either side that she doesn't know how to be his friend, after she had to learn in season 4 that she was a really really bad one. But even with that generous reading, it would still mean that Marinette then went on prioritizing not having to feel any further discomfort or having to owe up for her actual mistakes in their bond over her finally being the friend she SHOULD think Cat Noir deserves. A friend he desperately needed but never got cause she called it a day with her personal needs being met my having her best friend Alya with her.

Friends don't do that. Marinette denied him any genuine friendship he obviously truly needed as Cat Noir because she personally didn't need it from him anymore cause of Alya. And he rejected her desire to now be adored by him so there was no purpose left anymore for him to fulfill in her life besides the easy partner she made clear cant ask shit from her.

That is so unbelievably selfish... How on earth is that supposed to be FRIENDSHIP?

Srry, for this being long. Last point.

Luka of course needs to be mentioned too. Sure, the show says they are friends. But are they really? Their friendship is built on him being her platonic therapist back-up boyfriend who doesn't ask shit of her either. This is still the same pattern as with Catrien. Luka does all the emotional labor and Marinette just takes and takes and that's what makes her so comfortable around him but she isn't interested in him either beyond what she sees day to day in front of her.

That doesn't count as friendship in my book. For Adrigami you can still feel their friendship after their breakup. But Lukanette is Luka being a platonic therapist boyfriend and Marinette being just as disinterested in him as with Cat Noir while being just as comfortable getting showered in emotional labor that she's unwilling to work on giving back the way she should.

How is that friendship? What value has friendship for Marinette once any romantic feelings are involved from either side and it isn't Zoé (feels like a homophobic backhanded compliment lmao)

That was very long, I apologize. But thanks to writing in anon I started becoming more comfortable with the idea of joining the Fandom discourse again. I've got alot I wanna say after all that time in silence but I'm not sure yet if I should put myself out there again with a blog. With how season 5 ended Marinette stans are gonna be vicious beasts to any criticism they come across and I don't want that to happen again :(

---

I hope this isn't a case of speak of the devil and he shall appear but lately things have been really quiet on the Marinette stan front. The worst I’ve gotten was this really unhinged one, but they were so unpleasant they didn't have any friends so the harassment was very one-note and stopped pretty quickly since they had to run it alone. It could be that now that season 5 confirmed that season 4 wasn't an outlier, that the show’s writing has gotten incredibly sloppy and nasty, the critical side of the fandom has become unified and we add to each other’s posts and kind of back each other up. It's harder for Marinette stans to target us one by one, and their preferred tactic is dogpiling a single blog. A lot of the Marinette stans protesting my posts now shut up right quick when they see more people agreeing with me adding to the reblog chain.

As for the question, I agree with your assessment. It really does appear that Marinette hates the idea of being friends with a love interest. She whined about Adrien seeing her as just a friend all the way back in Riposte. Adrien sung her praises to Kagami, while she spied on them, and she had the gall to whine that the boy she “loves” thinks so highly of her because it wasn't the kind of thinking she wanted.

There was this one thing I said in a previous post that I think is accurate: Marinette part-times being Cat Noir's friend. Even the part of time she acts as his friend, she ignores his feelings, insults him, pushes him away, refuses to give him emotional support in any way and lies to him about anything she possibly can. She only approaches him as Marinette when she wants to complain about Adrien not coming to the date he didn't know was a date, when she thinks she can score a date with him or so that she can practice confessing to Adrien on him. Marinette's “friendship” with Cat Noir is all take with no give when she isn't outright ignoring his existence.

She also ignores boys who have feelings for her in her civilian life. Nathaniel is very suspicious of her in Reverser, having to be convinced that she wasn't planning to humiliate him, implying he isn't part of her friend group since he doesn't know her well enough to know she only humiliates people when they're in her way of getting at Adrien. (Alix makes it sound like she wouldn't do that period, but we know the truth by now.) She also refused to come to Juleka and Luka's shared birthday party if Luka was present after they broke up. I bet if you tried to tell Marinette, or her writers, that your romantic partner should also be your best friend to make a healthy relationship, they just wouldn't compute. 

I don't want to say Marinette doesn't hold friendship in high regard period, because the amount of exceptions she makes for Alya shows that she at least values Alya’s friendship. I think she just doesn't value friendship with boys. I feel like Marinette is the kind of person who doesn't think boys and girls can really be friends, which would explain why she thinks Adrien considering her a friend is worse than anything else. If boys can't really be friends with girls, Adrien using the word “friends” means they aren't even that.

Consider this: how often does Marinette hang out with her guy classmates when it isn't 1) a whole-class outing or 2) more likely that Marinette just wanted to hang out with his girlfriend? Like, in Animan, Marinette had no idea Nino had a crush on her, but she still acted like an outing with him at the zoo was the worst thing ever. I get that she was disappointed Adrien wasn't there, but Nino is one of Marinette’s oldest classmates, yet she doesn't want to spend time with him, unless she's planning to use him to get closer to Adrien, since he's Adrien’s best friend.

Of course, she doesn't really value the time with her other friends for its own sake outside of Alya either. It seems like the only times they hang out together is to plot or participate in her get Adrien quick schemes. The only times the girls do something not Marinette related is when Marinette hasn't called them together, like when they were going to the pool in Gorizilla, something Marinette completely forgot until Alya called her. Marinette has poor memory but, despite her knowing she has poor memory, she apparently gave herself no reminder to hang out with her friends. You bet I write down every occasion I’ve agreed to see my friends specifically because I have bad memory as well.

It seems like, unless you're Alya, Marinette only cares about you for how able and willing you are to help her catch Adrien's attention. I keep saying Marinette treats her Adrien romancing problems as the most important thing going on at any given moment, and it's true for all areas of her life. Maybe that's the reason we didn't see Socqueline for four seasons despite her supposedly being such an important friend to Marinette, and why she never joined the friend group proper; Socqueline couldn't help her get with Adrien so she wasn't worth Marinette’s time.

This is a yet another thing where Miraculous is actually pretty sexist; girls and boys can't ever just be friends and girls care more about getting guys than they do about their friends. Another thing of course is this idea that boys just don't have as in-depth feelings as girls or should bury their feelings and never ask for emotional support, which is why all of Marinette's love interests are her emotional support dispensers whose opinions on anything don’t matter when their job is to simply mindlessly worship Marinette while their feelings are devalued by the narrative every time they dare to try to ask Marinette for some support back. Luka gets Akumatized which convinces him to break up with Marinette when he had emotional needs she wasn't willing to fulfill. Meanwhile Adrien goes through the travesty that is Kuro Neko

“Power of love always so strong” but only when it's Marinette's toxic idea of love and when it isn't platonic love. Unless you're Alya, I guess.

[storkmuffin]

it might be worth considering that

1) the people silver chooses to make fun of are not people who tend to be vulnerable on the crew, they are largely people who are on the vanguard/we see otherwise being treated with respect. Nothing indicates that they face real consequences - is it dumb and immature, yes, but largely Silver is the one who gets hurt over it.

2) I know it's different with fictional people, and I'm NOT saying you are bad or causing harm or anything, but I do think it might be worth reflecting on that while you're saying only neurotypical people bond over people being tortured, you, a loudly professed neuroatypical person, are the ONLY one I've ever seen actually rejoice in Silver being tortured, and you certainly seem to bond with people who agree with you about him.

All I'm saying is things might not be as clear cut as you are making them out to be.

Oh dear. A John Silver stan that broke into and read an #anti john silver tagged post and got upset. Please don't read those if you're a John Silver stan. Abide the tags. Those posts so tagged will make you unhappy. Also, consider blocking me.

I'm taken aback to be called "loud". I suppose this means I've been much more impactful, at least on you, than I expected. Again, consider blocking me and not reading my tagged posts.

I have not rejoiced in John Silver's torture or maiming, loudly or otherwise. I said I didn't feel the sadness for his plight that the show (the acting, the set up, the direction, the music) insist that I feel and that disconnect made me want to stop watching the show altogether.

You're also missing the point of my recent post. I was trying to understand why I - me in particular- found this character that does in fact have very devoted hardcore stans so intensely off-putting well before he commits his unforgivable finale actions. I have found my answer.

And you're wrong in the rest of what you've said. Silver doing that does have consequences that reverberate through the story, for one, and for another, the bonding through singling out and humiliating people is harmful and repellant. Being wounded can be an internal invisible event. You probably take pride in being able to bear humiliation and be "fine" when something like that happens to you, whereas I object to the very act of intentionally causing humiliation. And John Silver gets punched, yeah, but he doesn't get hurt at all by creating that environment- he wins.

Oh, and - People I've become friends with in the Black Sails fandom don't monolithically agree with me about Silver, for one, and for another, I don't bond over hating Silver. Mutuals and I have bonded over loving the characters we love, loving the show overall, and some very open minded people just like having someone on their dash who says something new about the show.

I've had this said to me on tumblr before in a different fandom with much less civil discourse- You're The Only One I've Ever Seen Do/Say XYZ (disapproving in neurotypical). It's very cute that this is the weapon you reach for on the microblogging site in a fandom for a show that stopped airing six years before I found it. I'm not original enough to be the only person who ever thought any thought so if I felt it strongly enough to say it there's probably a lot of other people who felt it too. Again, abide the tags, friend.

[conduitandconjurer]

I don't get why the fans are so pressed about Klaus needing someone around "he's just latching onto Five/S!Ben cause U!Ben died", like... yes?? Most likely?? That doesn't exclude that he can love them too. Also, if you go through a loss so big the people around you aren't gonna just isolate you so you can "become your own person". And the "It's just another addiction" it's also so extreme! He DOES need his family! I don't really get it. Do you have an opinion?

Wait.

Wait so portions of the fandom are upset that Klaus is projecting his love and guilt over "his" Ben onto sad asshole Sparrow!Ben? Or? What, that he's an emotional whore that just needs to go around clinging onto whoever's closest?

I guess I don't understand the issue--what exactly about that is problematic to them? Are they not aware that Klaus has never felt that his mental or physical boundaries were respected, because of Reginald's experiments, and the ghosts themselves To me all the above does is show how much Klaus loves and misses the brother with whom he was always tasked to tag along, as children, and probably feels the one way he can gain closure over all those toxic years of codependency with Umbrella Ben is to help Sparrow Ben face his rage and shame and sense of inadequacy.

Is the argument that Klaus isn't capable of loving his family and that getting Ben back is a "new addiction'/"distraction"? Because that's frankly such a distorted interpretation of canon that I don't think it's worth either you or I wasting much time or energy on it. Whoever watched Season 3 and gleaned that probably has a personal axe to grind with someone in real life. Klaus probably reminds them of that person or experience so they're grafting the lens of a dysfunctional coping mechanism over Klaus's desperation to make all his years of severe trauma, suffering, and misplaced shame into something honorable. These people probably also wholly miss the point of the "scooped out ice cream" moment, the reason why he let himself be subjected to "bus ball," and the suicidal moment in the White Buffalo Room and are quick to say that Klaus's temporary desire to just rest where he "belonged" was selfish and callous. They don't realize that maybe he's sick of only being loved when he's useful. A really forced and artificial overtone of TUA discourse has always been to "compare traumas" for the 7 respective sibs and make a debate for who "has it worst." What's the point? It's not slices of pie that'll run out. I wish I could say it was even isolated to TUA, but it's not.

I think it's also strange how absolute and purist the perception of "goodness" is. Well written characters are always lovable but flawed. And it's not conniving or selfish to be motivated both by selfless love (Klaus wants to be emotionally close to Sparrow!Ben and Sparrow!Reginald--the latter of whom I loathe, btw--and make up for lost time) and by the silver lining of self-benefit (Klaus wants to find closure, self-esteem from an outside source--never a good idea, but he's still learning--perfection of his powers, and clarity of purpose). I say this as someone who has lived 39 years as a consummate people-pleaser: we live in a predominantly Eurocentric Protestant social narrative that tells us we have to be productive all the time, give all the time, be selfless and self-effacing, and ignore our own boundaries to please others. It's a lie to say a character doing genuinely good and kind things with any simultaneous ulterior motive is somehow the Devil's Armpit. I have trapped myself in the role of a caregiver who never takes a turn for so long that I cheer for anyone who has that "ENOUGH" moment, followed by "no, this time, I'll look out for me."

Klaus isn't just here for a distraction, a fix, or shits and giggles. Klaus adores his family and mourns harder than anyone because there is no beginning or end to his access to the afterlife.

I know it's upsetting, especially if you relate to Klaus, but filter out these portions of the fandom and continue as best you're able to love what you love <3

[sagebodisattva]

The Discipline of Detachment

So what about the discipline of detachment; a well known, yet greatly misunderstood and mis-characterized philosophical concept, generally defined as: a state in which a person overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people, or concepts of the world, and thus attains a heightened perspective...

So right away comes the common charge that detachment means that one is cold, apathetic and uncaring. This association is mainly due to confusing the meaning of the concept as used in psychology, with the meaning of the concept as used in philosophy. For the purposes of this video, we will be primarily concerned with the philosophical implications of detachment, but will do a general overview of the psychological meanings anyway, so as to get a better understanding of the subject by exploring many of it's various facets.

In psychology detachment is recognized as an emotional divestment, with a possible twofold functionality, one positive and one negative; the negative aspect definitely being a detriment for obvious reasons, and it is the side of emotional detachment in psychology that is supposedly lacking empathy, which usually gets associated with detachment in general, which thereby taints the entire concept with an adverse connotation.

So, in psychological terms, positive emotional detachment can be a behavior which allows a person to react calmly to highly emotional circumstances or individuals. Emotional detachment in this sense is a decision to "avoid" engaging emotional connections, rather than an inability or difficulty in doing so, typically for personal, social, or other reasons. In this sense it can allow people to maintain boundaries, psychic integrity and avoid undesired impact by or upon others, related to emotional demands. As such it is a deliberate mental attitude which "avoids" engaging the emotions of others. This detachment does not necessarily mean "avoiding" empathy; rather it allows the person space needed to rationally choose whether or not to be overwhelmed or manipulated by such feelings. Examples where this is used in a positive sense might include emotional boundary management, where a person "avoids" emotional levels of engagement related to people who are in some way emotionally overly demanding, such as difficult co-workers or relatives. This form of emotional detachment is basically harmless and is mostly related to being in a position of responsibility, possibly as a work requirement, or parental role, where being calm, while dealing with highly charged emotional people, is part of the job description. It wouldn't be beneficial for a doctor to get wrapped up emotionally while treating the his patients, for example, as it would interfere with his ability to perform his duties.

Then there is negative emotional detachment, to a lesser degree, being considered "emotional numbing", "emotional blunting", ie dissociation, depersonalization, or in its chronic form, depersonalization disorder. This type of emotional numbing or blunting is a disconnection from emotion, and is frequently used as a coping or survival skill during traumatic childhood events, such as abuse or severe neglect. Over time and with much use, this can become second nature when dealing with day to day stressors. Emotional detachment often arises from psychological trauma and is a component in many anxiety and stress disorders. The person, while physically present, moves elsewhere in the mind, and in a sense is "not entirely present", making them sometimes appear preoccupied. Thus, such detachment is often not as outwardly obvious as other psychiatric symptoms; people with this problem often have emotional systems that are in overdrive. They may have a hard time being a loving family member. They may avoid activities, places, and people associated with any traumatic events they have experienced. The dissociation can also lead to lack of attention and, hence, to memory problems and in extreme cases, amnesia. Social ostracism, such as shunning and parental alienation, are other examples where decisions to shut out a person creates a psychological trauma for the shunned party.

Then there is negative emotional detachment to a higher degree, wherein the person may seem fully present, but operate merely intellectually when emotional connection would be appropriate. This may present an extreme difficulty in giving or receiving empathy and can be related to the spectrum of narcissistic personality disorder. This kind of heavy negative emotional detachment also allows acts of extreme cruelty, such as torture and abuse, supported by the decision to not connect empathetically with the person concerned.

So, boom, there is is right there. This is the form of negative emotional detachment more generally known about and associated to detachment in general, the definition of which, ends up being the accusation most commonly leveled at philosophical detachment. Obviously this conflation is a misrepresentation, the motive of which, is mostly likely to dissuade an individual from freeing themselves from attachments by maligning the tool of freedom from this snare as something insidious and unsavory. In other words, whether people are even consciously aware of it or not, the natural inclination of individuals in delusion, is to try to keep everyone else also in delusion. It's mostly due to the conditioning, but sometimes there are also rare cases where the misdirection is deliberate and malicious.

So no, detachment, in the philosophical context, has nothing to do with the management of emotions for practical applications, nor of the emotional disorders of broken psychologies, but has everything to do with severe clinging attachments that inevitably bring deep suffering. Attachments, in this case, clarified specifically to mean: letting the configurations of illusory external appearances be conditional to some imaged state of emotional equilibrium; a pursuit that cannot ever be realized from it's approach, as real lasting inner peace is unconditional, and is unrelated to the addict like fixation of wanting certain gratifying feelings to be experienced, while wanting other frustrating feelings to be avoided.

So any assertion of detachment represented to mean: not caring, or being devoid of empathy, is an issue of psychology, not of philosophy; and this distinction should always be clarified for the purposes of serious discourse.

Yet, even if this distinction becomes clarified, one should also be prepared to recognize another major form of discouragement used to disregard detachment: that is, that the pursuit of this discipline is a waste of time because it's objective is an ideal. This type of dissuasion is a very commonly used tactic of the awareness denying externalists; indeed, it seems to be one of their favorites, as it is generously used as a sort of quick fix, one dismissal fits all repudiation. When in doubt, dismiss it as an ideal. And, of course, I say: whenever they play the ideal card on you, it means you are on the right track. Forge ahead with extra vigilance...

So now that we have elucidated these specific points about the general topic of detachment, let's tackle a couple of other common misunderstandings: which is: that detachment is basically the same thing as, or achieves the same purpose as, avoidance, denial or abstinence. This couldn't be further from the truth, pertaining to the aim and intent of detachment. Concerning avoidance, people often think that if they can identify the things that disturb their inner peace, and then set about to avoid them, that this somehow equates into a form of detachment. Or that, if one has no control over some feeling or experience they encounter, that ignoring it is a form of detachment. Sorry, but this doesn't cut the mustard. The first thing you need to come to terms with, is: it isn't anything "out here' that is actually disturbing your inner peace, so seeking to avoid any such factor isn't going to achieve the necessary subjugation, and hence mastery, over the mind.

Same goes for ignoring. Yes, the word is IGNORE. Which, on a side note, should be parsed for it's cryptosemantic implications; as the word "ignore" and the word "ignorance" have a specific relational significance worth meta analyzing. But, not to digress, ignoring isn't detachment. Ignoring is indicative of resentment, despite pretending that it doesn't bother you. It's obvious that, whatever it is that you are pretending doesn't bother you, is indeed bothering you, if you feel the need to go out of your way to ignore it. It's still succeeding in bothering you, but ignoring it is just the suspension of making the proper inner adjustment.

These types of provocations, that are seeking to push your buttons, are graciously serving as an instructive teaching; showing us exactly what we need to tweak within ourselves to overcome the power we give away by letting a state of inner peace be conditional to arrangements of illusion. I know you get upset when your buttons are pushed, but the HOPE, is that perhaps, after you eventually get bored and tired of always acting like a predicable wind up toy, that you will finally arrive at the point where you become aware of the existence of these buttons, and consciously choose to remove them. You don't have to feel you are compromising anything by doing this, for little by little you are making yourself impervious to oppression and manipulation.

And, don't expect any pats on the back for showing "tolerance"... as this still reflects an aversion. You'll get credit only when, whatever it is that you think you are so graciously tolerating, truly doesn't have the ability to bother you anymore. If you are avoiding or ignoring arrangements of appearances in an attempt to try and sustain a state of inner contentment, you are still playing the game of investments; and this isn't the discipline of detachment.

What the world needs is acceptance, not tolerance. None of us should tolerate within ourselves a sentiment of harnessed hatred. But that doesn't mean act it out either. It means purging all hate from the heart and becoming centered in all encompassing acceptance.