Tolerance towards overreaction?

Submitted by Paul (Canada), Feb 15, 2006 at 17:28

Eric brings up a very good point here. One thing that most of all (at least in the West) agree is that we have very little tolerance for overreaction. But before I go on, let me clarify, for those who tend to read things that are not there, that I am not implying or endorsing the idea that the defense of someone's prophet, or deity, or whatever must be classifieed as overreaction. It is simply being said that, in general, outbursts of rage and irate behavior over what normally is considered "small potatoes" by a large portion of society is taken as being excessive, very often dismissed, and subsequent outbursts tend to discredit the enraged fellow.

Far from trivializing the issue, the "overreaction paradigm" fits the bill, by providing some models that anyone can visualize: road rage, some cases of violence at home, and so on. I think it's not wrong to formulate the overall dislike for overreaction along the lines that "no matter how despicable you may **perceive** that my actions are/were, that does not give you the right to harm me or destroy my property". "Perceive" -- perception -- is key here, because it is a completely subjective action.

Terek Fatah is, therefore, right. Frequent outburtst of violence, as righteous it may feel for those, adults and children, burning flags, egging buildings, and harming others, can be seen, in this context, as "overreactions", leading to their dismissal as legitimate, and discrediting entire populations.

Cordially,

Paul

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".