Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can. — NOS4A2

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns.

Of course I can live peaceably next door to someone who thinks I should not exist (there are such people, actually) and they can live peaceably next door to me. We will both probably make some effort to stay out of each other's way. No comradely beers in the yard for us! — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is easier to handle when being neighbors in an apartment building where people can mostly ignore eachother without this having any bad consequences. But being neighbors in neighboring houses in a suburb is another matter, because there are issues of infrastructure, trees, fences, etc. that you must discuss with the neighbor and come to some agreement to.

Hearing or reading objectionable opinions will not so much as move a hair on one's head. — Bitter Crank

Even when they are said by a person living just a few meters away from you?

Whenever you see that person, you know, "This person wishes me dead". Does that make for a good life for you?

How much would Western Civilizational (WC) be changed, if both public sex and public nudity were accepted and tolerated? — 0 thru 9

It would be just another dogma, just another standard of behavior that would become normative and obligatory for all. And sexually transmitted infections would have a field day, obviously.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused.

So you're favoring selective antinatalism. Some types of antinatalism are not destructive or harmful. In fact, they can help humanity toward a better gene pool.

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur? — NOS4A2

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me — Hanover

Does their continued presence diminish your faith in humanity, or your faith that life is worth living?
If not, how so?

Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.

I've witnessed a situation like this, and I saw how quickly the police jumped to conclusions, issuing fines, and then other neighbors taking sides, reputations being damaged, practical problems (regarding fences and so on) becoming intractable, and so on. Shaky grounds.

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 — Hanover

The thing is that once the other person actually tells you they hate you etc., you are now living in the knowledge that you cannot rely on your neighbor (!) for basic human decency toward yourself. They might not actively engage in acts of aggression toward you, but you now have reason to expect that they will engage in acts of omission that can lead to your harm. For example, if they see someone breaking into your home, they will not call the police.

Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity. — SpaceDweller

Surely you wish that some people would not procreate?

I've only read them in English, not in Latin & German, respectively. Both probably use "joy" & "happiness". Why that matters to you I can't fathom. — 180 Proof

I speak several languages and so I can compare. Something that can be a problem in one language isn't necessarily so in another (such as expressing one concept with one word -- e.g. Schadenfreude). Words often don't have 1 to 1 translations. I'm fluent in German and I can find my way around Latin. My native language is a Slavic one, not English.
Well, I guess this is just one more of those things that only multilingual people can relate to. Nevermind.

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

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?

Blame the victim for what? — NOS4A2

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

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!

/.../ You can find it too in the almost alimentary effects visible in say, the rhythm of marching of the SS, in uniform, bursting with pride. How to be critical about that kind of joy? — StreetlightX

For that kind of criticism, some metaphysical/transcendental edifice is necessary, or a big enough ego.

Ah yes. Quite right. But your disparaging comments about Buddhist epistemology suggest that it is a lot of nonsense, and it might take a long time to dispel this idea. If you start a thread on the topic I'll join in, — FrancisRay

This is the new thread, scroll up, join in.

Calling all Buddhists fools for not seeing the faults in their own epistemology even after two and half thousand years puts you out on a very fragile limb, so I could argue it's up to you to present a clearly reasoned objection - but let;s call it a draw. .

Talk about projection!

I'm not a Buddhist. .. — FrancisRay

Then how can you say I misunderstood Buddhism??

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?

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.

But I have no wish to browbeat. You don't have to take my word for it. — FrancisRay

No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case.

No, I'm saying that having the avoidance of all suffering as a moral maxim is incoherent because moral maxims by their very nature, require at least some small degree of suffering to carry them out. — Isaac

Agreed, said maxim requires a further qualification.

Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. — TheMadFool

What do you mean -- what does it say about the world that so many great minds have been preoccupied with suffering?

Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything.

Well, for comparison, in Buddhism, they say that there is suffering, that it has a cause, and that there is a way to undo that cause; they also say that suffering is something to understand.

What pairs of terms did they use, in their languages, respectively?

Ecstasy vs contentment. Joy vs happiness. Eudaimonia vs hedonia. — 180 Proof

Maybe this is an English language thing, to juxtapose joy and happiness this way.

I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better. — TheMadFool

But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question?

Still not seeing what any of this has to do with the issue. What's at stake is whether (to rephrase it in your terms) it is reasonable to have an expectation of the individual that they will care about the well-being of other individuals sufficiently to want to suffer minor inconvenience for their benefit. — Isaac

But who is who in this willingness to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others?
And in what way?

Are you saying that the antinatalist should be willing to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others (including those yet to be born)?
In what way?

since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana — FrancisRay

Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?

Joy is something one undergoes: it happens to us. — StreetlightX

And yet: "this makes me happy", "that makes me unhappy".

Without some formalized distinction, "joy" and "happiness" are interchangeable in many contexts.

Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? — FrancisRay

There isn't one without the other.

I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered.

Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value.

However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .

Like you say:

My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. — FrancisRay

If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. — Isaac

So you exclude the possibility that the two can overlap?
If you do, on what grounds?

But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. — Possibility

Oh. So one should set one's hopes on becoming a legend?

How is any of this an "anti-dote for suffering"??

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?

So you're saying that morality causes suffering?

Perhaps buy a gun? — Isaac

So much for "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

What good serves unity -- if not survival?

Where exactly is the dividing line?

Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings. — Janus

Yes.
Humanist morality is becoming something that fewer and fewer can afford.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake?