Why is everyone so intolerant of anything different?

We live in an era that supposedly champions liberalism and free speech, yet somehow, people have never been more easily offended by differing opinions.

Even self-proclaimed classical liberals—those who preach maximum freedom and tolerance—often act like tyrants toward anyone they disagree with. You see it all over social media: people blocking anyone with a different view, claiming that silencing dissent is somehow "liberal."

There are even plenty of high-profile CEOs and successful professionals who waste their precious time bickering with anonymous trolls online, simply because they don't share the same ideology.

It seems everyone is only "liberal" when it suits them; everyone thinks they're right and can't stand someone challenging their worldview.

Usually, religious fanatics are the first to come to mind, but fanaticism isn't just about faith. It exists everywhere. In reality, we’re all fanatics for our own beliefs, each trying to push our own specific agenda.

So, what’s the fix? How do we actually achieve true tolerance? Or is it impossible because we're all too busy viewing everything through our own narrow lens?

What on earth does any of that have to do with spirituality? 🤔

Justin Garcia7 said:We live in an era that supposedly champions liberalism and free speech, yet somehow, people have never been more easily offended by differing opinions.

Even self-proclaimed classical liberals—those who preach maximum freedom and tolerance—often act like tyrants toward anyone they disagree with. You see it all over social media: people blocking anyone with a different view, claiming that silencing dissent is somehow "liberal."

There are even plenty of high-profile CEOs and successful professionals who waste their precious time bickering with anonymous trolls online, simply because they don't share the same ideology.

It seems everyone is only "liberal" when it suits them; everyone thinks they're right and can't stand someone challenging their worldview.

Usually, religious fanatics are the first to come to mind, but fanaticism isn't just about faith. It exists everywhere. In reality, we’re all fanatics for our own beliefs, each trying to push our own specific agenda.

So, what’s the fix? How do we actually achieve true tolerance? Or is it impossible because we're all too busy viewing everything through our own narrow lens?

I suppose we get closer—or perhaps even reach it—by raising our awareness here, or by reconnecting with a higher plane above us. Without leaving the physical body and returning from above, the real question is just how to achieve a higher state of consciousness right here. Even if someone is just starting to wonder how to find tolerance—when they hadn't really thought about it before—I guess that's already progress.

Justin Garcia7 said:We live in an era that supposedly champions liberalism and free speech, yet somehow, people have never been more easily offended by differing opinions.

Even self-proclaimed classical liberals—those who preach maximum freedom and tolerance—often act like tyrants toward anyone they disagree with. You see it all over social media: people blocking anyone with a different view, claiming that silencing dissent is somehow "liberal."

There are even plenty of high-profile CEOs and successful professionals who waste their precious time bickering with anonymous trolls online, simply because they don't share the same ideology.

It seems everyone is only "liberal" when it suits them; everyone thinks they're right and can't stand someone challenging their worldview.

Usually, religious fanatics are the first to come to mind, but fanaticism isn't just about faith. It exists everywhere. In reality, we’re all fanatics for our own beliefs, each trying to push our own specific agenda.

So, what’s the fix? How do we actually achieve true tolerance? Or is it impossible because we're all too busy viewing everything through our own narrow lens?

Great topic. Fits right in with the spirituality stuff. People clearly misunderstand what spirituality even is, or they think it's just some niche hobby. Most folks think being spiritual means finding some deep insight into consciousness to escape the grind of daily life.
Yeah, right. Think again. 😁

The solution? There isn't one. None.
Because if you suggest a solution, someone else is gonna lose their mind over it.

Justin Garcia7 said:We live in an era that supposedly champions liberalism and free speech, yet somehow, people have never been more easily offended by differing opinions.

Even self-proclaimed classical liberals—those who preach maximum freedom and tolerance—often act like tyrants toward anyone they disagree with. You see it all over social media: people blocking anyone with a different view, claiming that silencing dissent is somehow "liberal."

There are even plenty of high-profile CEOs and successful professionals who waste their precious time bickering with anonymous trolls online, simply because they don't share the same ideology.

It seems everyone is only "liberal" when it suits them; everyone thinks they're right and can't stand someone challenging their worldview.

Usually, religious fanatics are the first to come to mind, but fanaticism isn't just about faith. It exists everywhere. In reality, we’re all fanatics for our own beliefs, each trying to push our own specific agenda.

So, what’s the fix? How do we actually achieve true tolerance? Or is it impossible because we're all too busy viewing everything through our own narrow lens?

You can't escape a diversity of thought. It's human nature—people are obsessed with their favorite tool, the intellect, and being naturally ego-driven, they insist their view of the world is the only correct one.
From a spiritual angle, the answer is simple: more love, and moving your sense of identity away from just your emotions and thoughts.

But practically speaking, the real issue is how we solve this at a societal level—politically.
That would mean giving (almost) every viewpoint and worldview a seat at the table in shaping society. Of course, that leads to an endless series of compromises where no single group gets everything they want
(not even the wealthiest among us), but everyone walks away with something—kind of like how direct democracy works.

One mistake we make, both individually and as a nation, is treating tolerance as an absolute principle. Just like freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, tolerance shouldn't be a free pass for intolerant views, beliefs, or actions.

Philosophy loves to ask, "What would a perfect society look like?"
The answer is easy: just find enough perfect people—free, tolerant, smart, and kind-hearted... 😍

casualtiger2 said:You can't escape a diversity of thought. It's human nature—people are obsessed with their favorite tool, the intellect, and being naturally ego-driven, they insist their view of the world is the only correct one.
From a spiritual angle, the answer is simple: more love, and moving your sense of identity away from just your emotions and thoughts.

But practically speaking, the real issue is how we solve this at a societal level—politically.
That would mean giving (almost) every viewpoint and worldview a seat at the table in shaping society. Of course, that leads to an endless series of compromises where no single group gets everything they want
(not even the wealthiest among us), but everyone walks away with something—kind of like how direct democracy works.

One mistake we make, both individually and as a nation, is treating tolerance as an absolute principle. Just like freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, tolerance shouldn't be a free pass for intolerant views, beliefs, or actions.

Philosophy loves to ask, "What would a perfect society look like?"
The answer is easy: just find enough perfect people—free, tolerant, smart, and kind-hearted... 😍

That was exactly what I was thinking when I originally posted my question to the thread starter. 😁

Tolerance really comes from that emotional-intellectual sphere: we tolerate those we disagree with (intellectually) and those who get under our skin (emotionally). True compassion, or actually accepting someone who is vastly different from us, has to come from a different "center" altogether. Until we become aware of that and manage to make that internal shift, we just rely on tolerance as a social convention—basically, just being decent human beings.

For instance, those egoists who constantly insist they are right (they just *have* to be) are incredibly exhausting to me. Every minute spent with them, every sentence exchanged, drains me on every possible level. And yet, sometimes you just have to communicate or socialize, because humans aren't built to survive in total isolation, and it isn't always possible to be surrounded only by people who perfectly align with us. So, we practice tolerance. Or rather, I recognize that someone is an egocentrist, knowing they won't suddenly transform overnight... but I also acknowledge they have a right to their vision of the world (even if it's pretty warped), so I accept that fact and tolerate their presence. I don't attack them, I don't try to nail them down like a stake in the ground, and I don't even bother trying to "crush them with arguments." I simply tolerate them. But I don't view my tolerance as some grand spiritual virtue, because it isn't. It’s just a practical necessity to keep us from fighting each other and to stop wasting time on people we consider fools.

What truly connects to spirituality is compassion. That means understanding why someone behaves the way they do (there are many reasons for bad behavior, but they usually boil down to one thing—that person is suffering in some way) and striving to alleviate that suffering. Of course, not at our own expense, because then we haven't actually achieved anything. There are situations where you can help someone reach awareness, and there are others where the healthiest thing is to step away and offer compassion from a distance. And yes, there are times when you just need to block someone on social media. 🥱

Joseph Bailey41 said:That was exactly what I was thinking when I originally posted my question to the thread starter. 😁

Tolerance really comes from that emotional-intellectual sphere: we tolerate those we disagree with (intellectually) and those who get under our skin (emotionally). True compassion, or actually accepting someone who is vastly different from us, has to come from a different "center" altogether. Until we become aware of that and manage to make that internal shift, we just rely on tolerance as a social convention—basically, just being decent human beings.

For instance, those egoists who constantly insist they are right (they just *have* to be) are incredibly exhausting to me. Every minute spent with them, every sentence exchanged, drains me on every possible level. And yet, sometimes you just have to communicate or socialize, because humans aren't built to survive in total isolation, and it isn't always possible to be surrounded only by people who perfectly align with us. So, we practice tolerance. Or rather, I recognize that someone is an egocentrist, knowing they won't suddenly transform overnight... but I also acknowledge they have a right to their vision of the world (even if it's pretty warped), so I accept that fact and tolerate their presence. I don't attack them, I don't try to nail them down like a stake in the ground, and I don't even bother trying to "crush them with arguments." I simply tolerate them. But I don't view my tolerance as some grand spiritual virtue, because it isn't. It’s just a practical necessity to keep us from fighting each other and to stop wasting time on people we consider fools.

What truly connects to spirituality is compassion. That means understanding why someone behaves the way they do (there are many reasons for bad behavior, but they usually boil down to one thing—that person is suffering in some way) and striving to alleviate that suffering. Of course, not at our own expense, because then we haven't actually achieved anything. There are situations where you can help someone reach awareness, and there are others where the healthiest thing is to step away and offer compassion from a distance. And yes, there are times when you just need to block someone on social media. 🥱

True enough—as long as that vision doesn't stomp all over someone else's integrity.

casualtiger2 said:You can't escape a diversity of thought. It's human nature—people are obsessed with their favorite tool, the intellect, and being naturally ego-driven, they insist their view of the world is the only correct one.
From a spiritual angle, the answer is simple: more love, and moving your sense of identity away from just your emotions and thoughts.

But practically speaking, the real issue is how we solve this at a societal level—politically.
That would mean giving (almost) every viewpoint and worldview a seat at the table in shaping society. Of course, that leads to an endless series of compromises where no single group gets everything they want
(not even the wealthiest among us), but everyone walks away with something—kind of like how direct democracy works.

One mistake we make, both individually and as a nation, is treating tolerance as an absolute principle. Just like freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, tolerance shouldn't be a free pass for intolerant views, beliefs, or actions.

Philosophy loves to ask, "What would a perfect society look like?"
The answer is easy: just find enough perfect people—free, tolerant, smart, and kind-hearted... 😍

I’d actually take a completely different approach here. To me, a perfect society isn't one that happens to contain great people; it’s a society dedicated to helping people *become* those individuals. None of us were born this way. For example, if my five-year-old neighbor comes over and starts showing off her collection of toy chickens, ducks, or even her little plastic tractor, I find it adorable because it’s just a normal stage of growing up. But if a fifty-year-old started acting like that, I’d be seriously concerned about their mental state. I love seeing a twelve-year-old beam with pride over a good grade or a soccer goal, but when adults get that wrapped up in their own egos, it feels a bit off. I also remember watching this one TV show where high schoolers had these intense, passionate debates about everything under the sun, and it felt so much more meaningful than the modern trend of people spending money to watch two old guys argue on an internet stream—or worse, seeing an adult think they've found purpose by tearing someone down on a message board.

I get it, though. Most of us have a little glitch in our programming that makes us waste precious time on these kinds of nonsense activities (which are really just various ways of feeding the ego) instead of focusing on something creative, spiritual, or educational that benefits everyone, including ourselves. We aren't perfect, and honestly, we probably never will be. We don't agree on everything, and frankly, we shouldn't. If we did, we wouldn't have the friction needed to push one another to grow, improve, or collaborate. Without that drive, there would be no reason to rely on anyone else, let alone live together in a community.

I've been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately, which ties back into this theme... Is it even moral to strive for transcendence when most of humanity hasn't even reached basic self-actualization yet? It’s not just about individual flaws; it’s that as a society, we seem to value all the wrong things. We fight over them as if they're finite resources—as if having more money, success, or freedom somehow means there's less left for everyone else. Is it right to rise above all that and leave everyone else behind in the dust? Or should we reach back and pull them up with us? And how do you do that without losing your own footing? 😬

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’d actually take a completely different approach here. To me, a perfect society isn't one that happens to contain great people; it’s a society dedicated to helping people *become* those individuals. None of us were born this way. For example, if my five-year-old neighbor comes over and starts showing off her collection of toy chickens, ducks, or even her little plastic tractor, I find it adorable because it’s just a normal stage of growing up. But if a fifty-year-old started acting like that, I’d be seriously concerned about their mental state. I love seeing a twelve-year-old beam with pride over a good grade or a soccer goal, but when adults get that wrapped up in their own egos, it feels a bit off. I also remember watching this one TV show where high schoolers had these intense, passionate debates about everything under the sun, and it felt so much more meaningful than the modern trend of people spending money to watch two old guys argue on an internet stream—or worse, seeing an adult think they've found purpose by tearing someone down on a message board.

I get it, though. Most of us have a little glitch in our programming that makes us waste precious time on these kinds of nonsense activities (which are really just various ways of feeding the ego) instead of focusing on something creative, spiritual, or educational that benefits everyone, including ourselves. We aren't perfect, and honestly, we probably never will be. We don't agree on everything, and frankly, we shouldn't. If we did, we wouldn't have the friction needed to push one another to grow, improve, or collaborate. Without that drive, there would be no reason to rely on anyone else, let alone live together in a community.

I've been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately, which ties back into this theme... Is it even moral to strive for transcendence when most of humanity hasn't even reached basic self-actualization yet? It’s not just about individual flaws; it’s that as a society, we seem to value all the wrong things. We fight over them as if they're finite resources—as if having more money, success, or freedom somehow means there's less left for everyone else. Is it right to rise above all that and leave everyone else behind in the dust? Or should we reach back and pull them up with us? And how do you do that without losing your own footing? 😬

Chasing transcendence isn't some selfish detour away from helping the world—it’s actually the opposite.
Every time we fix up our own backyard, we’re fixing a little piece of the world—no matter how small that patch of dirt actually is.
Plus, that just naturally ends up being a win for our local community.
The more individuals and small groups that challenge the "Kingdom of Heaven," the better—but honestly, progress is always going to be a slow grind.

On the flip side—since you've managed to turn the whole argument on its head—I actually agree that how a society treats its people matters immensely. That’s exactly why I brought up politics. Back when I was younger, living in the old US, I had a massive aversion to the whole political scene—but honestly? It’s a necessary lever. It's one of the few ways things can actually be changed.
Progress moves slow around here too—we’re just individuals, after all, and I know we can't expect to move the needle overnight. Still, I honestly feel like some level of political engagement is a duty for everyone—especially for those of us who care about spiritual values.
In a world where some tiny little number on a Wall Street ticker can decide the fate of millions, we really need to find a way to make sure that number actually reflects what most people need. While the masses are busy getting swept up in various ideologies—and let's be honest, it happens—that small group at the top is busy making sure their own material interests stay perfectly intact.
That’s why this whole struggle over who has the "right" perspective or worldview actually matters—it can be pretty useful, honestly. Even a heated debate on a forum like this helps people sharpen their own views and finally see things clearly.

Not sure if I’m making enough sense here—I feel like I should probably write a whole novel to actually explain this properly, but honestly? I just can't be bothered to type that much.

For those of us sitting pretty—not exactly struggling, but doing alright—that pull toward something transcendental might actually be our most defining trait. It’s an existential necessity, really. But at the same time, we have this responsibility—this constant fight in other arenas—to make sure more people can actually reach that kind of stability.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Spirituality really boils down to compassion—simple as that. It’s about actually grasping why someone acts the way they do. Most bad behavior stems from one single root: that person is suffering in some way. The goal is to help ease that pain, though—obviously—not at my own expense, because then I haven't actually helped anyone. Sometimes you can help someone reach a moment of clarity; other times, the healthiest thing is just to offer compassion from a distance. And yeah, there are those days when you just need to hit the block button on social media and call it a day.

👍

PS
Just one more thought on that idea about how "we" as a society value all the wrong things...
It’s really just the classic chicken or the egg scenario.
I mean, look—society obviously exerts massive influence over the individual through its lack of progress, the state of the economy, constant advertising, and all that political or religious propaganda. On the flip side, you have the individual—with their own desires and needs (which might seem trivial to someone else, but feel pretty real to them)—shaping what that society becomes in the first place.

What would actually happen if nobody had an urge for drugs? Or violence, theft, or fraud?

Honestly, if you’re getting all worked up and offended by someone else's opinion, it just shows you aren't actually confident in what you believe.
It’s everywhere lately—this whole vibe where religions constantly preach that God loves you, God is perfectly just, God is pure goodness, and everything is just sunshine and rainbows. But then you look at reality? You're struggling, life is throwing punches left and right, and problems are hitting you from every single angle.

Something just doesn't add up there, and deep down, that kind of disconnect just eats away at a person's self-esteem.

Joseph Bailey41 said:What on earth does any of that have to do with spirituality? 🤔

Isn't being intolerant toward intolerance just another way to achieve personal growth?

Quincy:

Justin Garcia7 As specified by: .... What is the actual solution here? How does one ever truly achieve tolerance? Or is it an impossible ideal, doomed from the start because every individual is inherently trapped within their own narrow perspective?

That question—and its subsequent solution—is fundamentally flawed because it has been posed far too early in our evolution. We are attempting to address it within the wrong framework entirely. The current mindset is trapped in a field of perception that views this as a problem to begin with, when in reality, there is no issue at all. The question exists solely within the realm of duality, whereas the answer lies in non-duality, which serves as nothing more than a reflection of that very duality. Is it not a mistake to seek a remedy in the same distorted dimension that created the perceived conflict?
I would be far too optimistic if I were to suggest that anyone could provide even a shred of an answer to that question—not even a billion years from now, while trapped within the constraints of duality.
Within the realm of duality, this question will never truly be resolved, primarily because the very nature of duality is inherently irreconcilable within its own field. Once one moves beyond duality, the need for resolution—for the pursuit of achieving anything at all—simply ceases to exist. Everything just Is.

darkcanyon10 said:Great topic. Fits right in with the spirituality stuff. People clearly misunderstand what spirituality even is, or they think it's just some niche hobby. Most folks think being spiritual means finding some deep insight into consciousness to escape the grind of daily life.
Yeah, right. Think again. 😁

The solution? There isn't one. None.
Because if you suggest a solution, someone else is gonna lose their mind over it.

The heavens. They simply will not be. 🙂

Quincy:

casualtiger2 As stated by: What would actually happen if the fundamental impulse for drugs simply vanished? If the craving for violence, theft, and deception evaporated overnight? It’s a question worth weighing with some deliberation. We often speak of crime as a systemic failure, but isn't there an inherent, darker element within the individual that drives these impulses? If you remove the chemical dependency and the predatory urge to deceive, what remains of our social fabric? Would we finally achieve a state of true stability, or would we merely find ourselves staring into a void, wondering what purpose fills the space where those vices once lived? One has to wonder: is civilization built upon the management of these urges, or would it flourish only once they were gone entirely?

I am genuinely curious to hear the response to this particular question. 🙂

If you take a monkey and start draping it in flower petals and fancy leaves, at the end of the day, it’s still just a monkey... and I think it works pretty much the same way with people, too—though, let's be honest, I'd say monkeys are actually a bit more evolved than us 😁

It’s just what happens when fear takes over—it pushes us straight into this bubble of self-absorption and constant anxiety.
Most of the time, it’s really just that classic drive you see in a neglected kid—trying to claw back some attention within their own little digital world, acting like they’re the center of the universe just to feel important again.
Of course, that kind of mindset comes with a massive lack of tolerance for anyone else.

If you want the full breakdown: https://tomislavbudak.com/clanci/nap...33-samovaznost

Dana Davis5 said:If you take a monkey and start draping it in flower petals and fancy leaves, at the end of the day, it’s still just a monkey... and I think it works pretty much the same way with people, too—though, let's be honest, I'd say monkeys are actually a bit more evolved than us 😁

Simple and true. Not sure who's actually more advanced, though. Monkeys steal stuff, they have a sense of humor about the world, and they get jealous.

Lawrence Morris2 said:It’s just what happens when fear takes over—it pushes us straight into this bubble of self-absorption and constant anxiety.
Most of the time, it’s really just that classic drive you see in a neglected kid—trying to claw back some attention within their own little digital world, acting like they’re the center of the universe just to feel important again.
Of course, that kind of mindset comes with a massive lack of tolerance for anyone else.

If you want the full breakdown: https://tomislavbudak.com/clanci/nap...33-samovaznost

Narcissism and anxiety aren't even the same thing. Narcissists care about themselves, while anxious people aren't even sure they *can* take care of themselves. They spend every day worrying if the future is gonna hit them out of nowhere and ruin their security.
They're looking for guarantees that life just doesn't give. Both narcissists and the worriers are just trying to protect themselves—trying to find safety in an uncertain life.

darkcanyon10 said:Simple and true. Not sure who's actually more advanced, though. Monkeys steal stuff, they have a sense of humor about the world, and they get jealous.

Narcissism and anxiety aren't even the same thing. Narcissists care about themselves, while anxious people aren't even sure they *can* take care of themselves. They spend every day worrying if the future is gonna hit them out of nowhere and ruin their security.
They're looking for guarantees that life just doesn't give. Both narcissists and the worriers are just trying to protect themselves—trying to find safety in an uncertain life.

And don't even get me started on female monkeys... they just sit there while a new male kills off all their previous offspring just so he can start his own line.
Nature is something else, isn't it? 😁
Quincy:

Self-absorption and anxiety aren't really the same thing, if you ask me. Narcissists might worry about themselves, but anxious people aren't even sure they *can* take care of themselves. They spend every single day stressing out, wondering if the future is going to screw them over or if they can actually stay secure. They're looking for guarantees that life just doesn't hand out. Both narcissists and the anxious types are just trying to insulate themselves—trying to find some safety in an unpredictable world.

Sure, they aren't the same "category," but psychodynamically speaking, they end up in the same bucket, so what's the difference?
Just look at those "narcissists"—they're so incredibly anxious... whether they realize it or not.

Lawrence Morris2 said:And don't even get me started on female monkeys... they just sit there while a new male kills off all their previous offspring just so he can start his own line.
Nature is something else, isn't it? 😁
Quincy:

Self-absorption and anxiety aren't really the same thing, if you ask me. Narcissists might worry about themselves, but anxious people aren't even sure they *can* take care of themselves. They spend every single day stressing out, wondering if the future is going to screw them over or if they can actually stay secure. They're looking for guarantees that life just doesn't hand out. Both narcissists and the anxious types are just trying to insulate themselves—trying to find some safety in an unpredictable world.

Sure, they aren't the same "category," but psychodynamically speaking, they end up in the same bucket, so what's the difference?
Just look at those "narcissists"—they're so incredibly anxious... whether they realize it or not.

What? 😱 🙂 🙂 🙂

darkcanyon10 said:What? 😱 🙂 🙂 🙂

🙂🙂

Justin Garcia7 said:We live in an era that supposedly champions liberalism and free speech, yet somehow, people have never been more easily offended by differing opinions.

Even self-proclaimed classical liberals—those who preach maximum freedom and tolerance—often act like tyrants toward anyone they disagree with. You see it all over social media: people blocking anyone with a different view, claiming that silencing dissent is somehow "liberal."

There are even plenty of high-profile CEOs and successful professionals who waste their precious time bickering with anonymous trolls online, simply because they don't share the same ideology.

It seems everyone is only "liberal" when it suits them; everyone thinks they're right and can't stand someone challenging their worldview.

Usually, religious fanatics are the first to come to mind, but fanaticism isn't just about faith. It exists everywhere. In reality, we’re all fanatics for our own beliefs, each trying to push our own specific agenda.

So, what’s the fix? How do we actually achieve true tolerance? Or is it impossible because we're all too busy viewing everything through our own narrow lens?

I remember reading in this book about warfare and its underlying causes (I can't recall the title or author off the top of my head, though I could probably look it up later!), that everything might actually boil down to chemistry—specifically oxytocin. It supposedly has this dual effect where it reinforces your own convictions while simultaneously ramping up your aversion to opposing views. I guess the more you love one thing, the more you end up hating anything different; it’s almost like one cannot exist without the other. So, if that's the case, maybe the only real solution would be total indifference. But then again, if we were all truly indifferent, I suppose even hatred wouldn't really be a big deal anymore.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I remember reading in this book about warfare and its underlying causes (I can't recall the title or author off the top of my head, though I could probably look it up later!), that everything might actually boil down to chemistry—specifically oxytocin. It supposedly has this dual effect where it reinforces your own convictions while simultaneously ramping up your aversion to opposing views. I guess the more you love one thing, the more you end up hating anything different; it’s almost like one cannot exist without the other. So, if that's the case, maybe the only real solution would be total indifference. But then again, if we were all truly indifferent, I suppose even hatred wouldn't really be a big deal anymore.

Being indifferent might actually save us in toxic relationships.
But hate? Hate just makes things worse.