[52-6F-62]

> I think in most (all?) situations when there's a movement among people in a direction which seems blatantly wrong to you, the worst thing to do is to dismiss everyone taking part in this movement as stupid and/or evil. You're not going to improve things and you'll probably contribute to make them worse.

I think I understand the point you're making, however I think there's another side you haven't approached. Your interpretation leaves no room for the amoral — that is, it seems to make the possibly ill-fated assumption that anyone who acts in a suppressive way is acting as a misguided human rather than on baser instincts. There's a line—but where?

For instance, on the subject of climate change there are those who find themselves in positions of power and financial gain due to loosening regulations and even inflicting further damage. There are also those who vehemently oppose it for the sake of long-term survival.

I would loosely liken the case to a predator pursuing prey. They might not be seeking to devour the opposing group directly, but what they care about. The prey in this case would be unwise to delay any action on the count of understanding the predator (or their ilk) to maintain any moral high ground as the result is understood to be quickly-impending and utter doom (for all, in this instance). It seems to me that in such a case immediate and direct action is required, and the understanding and teaching must continue, but can't precede direct action out of necessity.

I'd argue the same for WWII—but that discussion would probably get out of hand fast.

[wsy]

When viewed separately from an emotional and rational point of view, IMHO this tension can be resolved:

- as a rational being, you should protect yourself against threats. So it is perfectly fine to fight your enemies. Important: their motivation doesn't matter in this perspective, you just defend yourself against a threat.

- from an emotional perspective, hate and good/evil dichotomy just poisons your perception. There is nothing positive about hating (except maybe that it gives you more fighting motivation).

Interestingly, by really empathizing with your enemies (e.g., understanding deeply why someone seeks power and financial gain), you usually come up with much better defense and protection strategies compared to just viewing them as evil and immoral.

Loving someone does not mean you always have to be nice to them.

[norlys]

"It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system."

[52-6F-62]

This was a very thoughtful and well reasoned approach to the problem I posed. I appreciate it. What's more, I agree.

[klum]

I think it's quite rare that people actually knowingly act amorally -- everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys, or compelled to do bad things by circumstances out of their control. You mention WWII; I have the impression that one of the factors generally considered to be behind the war were the repercussions/aggression against Germany following WWI. Dismissing every German not actively fighting back against the Nazis as "stupid and/or evil" is in my book an example of the mistaken viewpoint I mentioned earlier... but yes, these discussions tend to get out of hand :).

As you mention, sometimes action is required, and that doesn't preclude an understanding viewpoint.