[kelseyfrog]

I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here.

I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.

[s1artibartfast]

This is what I find as strange. Why couldn't you sleep at night?

In my mind, the moral, healthy, productive, and pro-social thing would be to continue friendship.

I dont think shunning people builds bridges or helps anyone.

Then again, my generation grew up with stories like black activists who befriended KKK members and slowly converted them with compassion and challenging their preconceived notions.

[kelseyfrog]

I couldn't sleep at night because it would cause cognitive dissonance. I don't think I'm capable of intellectualizing my way out of it.

More power to the people who can do it. It's just not within my ability.

[s1artibartfast]

im curious what the dissonance is. what is the it in "out of _it_"

is it just cultural instinct and expectation?

[kelseyfrog]

This is one of those comments that stuck with me. First because of my inability to articulate a response, but I've had some time to think.

When I think about why I'm uncomfortable with the idea, it stems from feeling like a lack the ability to push back against bigotry with tact. While some people have this skill, I do not. The consequence of this is either not engaging with bigots, or not speaking up when something bigoted is said.

I believe that not speaking up against bigoted beliefs implicitly normalizes their acceptability. What I mean by this is that I personally and deeply value tolerance and non-judgementalness with the exception of bigotry[1].

Faced with an inability to tactfully push back, I feel left with not engaging with folks who are overtly bigoted. Saying, "well you should not do that or feel that way," doesn't change the emotional response I have to that situation, it only pushes the intellectual part of me farther way from the emotional side creating a wider gap between feeling and intellect - effectively sowing greater cognitive dissonance.

More power to the people who have the skills to tactfully engage with bigots, but that's not me right now. Maybe someday.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[zero-sharp]

There's definitely some things that warrant distancing. But I try to appreciate the good, even if there is bad. Moral purity is a luxury and self-righteousness can be ugly (sorry).

[lolinder]

Not only is it a luxury, it's sheer arrogance to pretend it exists at all.

None of us get through life without complicated trade-offs, and in most cases when you disagree with ~50% of a country's population it's because you have different values of what good thing matters most.

[kelseyfrog]

In fact it's a privilege to not have to worry about moral purity. Being able to look past views without personal consequences is life free of that burden. Some people don't have that option.

[zero-sharp]

Oh, other people have cognitive dissonance too. It's not just you. Being aware of the bad and still engaging doesn't mean that the issue is being ignored or given less weight.

Most people are full of contradictions and often carry beliefs that might be seen as controversial (perhaps in hindsight). Maybe it's not appropriate to lump all controversial beliefs into one, but I think a small part of the problem is that we identify ourselves as being morally pure as a way to avoid having hard conversations.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think it is necessarily about the hard conversations with others. I think it is just convenient for some people to cut the world into black and white binaries and reduce other humans to one dimension.

There is a human instinct resolve ambiguity, and barring that, heuristically paper over it.

The more emotionally engaging a topic is, the more galling the uncertainty and cognitive dissonance is. The more distressing the uncertainty, the more people want a simple solution, even if it isnt true.

I think questions like if someone can be a racist AND a good person are complex. They are uncomfortable. This makes a simple answer of "NO" all the more attractive. It makes life a lot easier than if the answer is "sometimes, but it depends on 1,000 other things".

Applying purity tests to others provides an easy way to go through life while minimizing the thought and consideration given to those people.

[kelseyfrog]

There's two types of people, those who think in black and white, and those who think in shades of grey.

[kelseyfrog]

It sounds like you find moral purity to be reprehensible, but at the same time, don't have an issue with having reprehensible people in your life. Why don't you demonstrate how it's done and become friends with me?

Contact info in bio.

[stale2002]

Sure, it would suck to have some sort of very serious mental disorder that forced one to hyper fixate on things that they have no ability to control or effect, and for which it is detrimental to focus on that as opposed to one's immediate and day to day problems.

So, in some sense it is a "privilege" to not have such a rare and extreme problem.

But, mostly the privilege is in the other direction, and the people with the privilege are the ones who dont have other serious problems in their life that they can afford to spend all their time and effort focusing on something that they have little ability to effect or change and aren't directly related to their immediate problems.

Most the people with material problems are the ones with the less privilege here, even though, yes in some rare cases the inability to avoid focusing on things that are irrelevant to ones day to day and immediate problems can be an issue.

> is life free of that burden.

Quite the opposite. People with actual burdens don't have the time, effort, or luxury to focus on things that are outside of their immediate issues.

They have things to do and problems to solve that are hurting them seriously in the material world.

Its the rich and wealthy, and undiscriminated that have the privilege to be morally pure all the time.

[kelseyfrog]

Maybe you can give an example where you feel like you had to compromise your morals because you're not rich, wealthy, and undiscriminated? It would help to have something tangible to talk about.

[stale2002]

> had to compromise your morals

Well, going back to the original hypothetical that was brought up about making friends with racists.

Befriending the racists can actually be a pretty effective way of getting the racists to stop assaulting you at school every day.

If that example is too extreme, you can go with "making friends with people to work together on homework so you can graduate".

And, you are what you pretend to be sometimes, and eventually that stuff can turn into real friendships.

I would never judge someone for doing that.

But you seem to think that making moral "compromises" must mean that one's life is free from burdens.

By all means, do what you need to do in your life.

But, it is extraordinarily insulting that you are calling people privileged for having the "luxury" of not being morally pure, and not being able to pick and choose perfect friends.

[whaaaaat]

I'm with you. There are hard lines. But I also have hard lines in who you support. Like, if you vote for a politician who supports, e.g., the eradication of trans people, then even if you say, "I don't believe in that" you've furthered that cause by issuing your vote. I can't abide someone who is willing to compromise on some things.