Very important to understand this. Same is true with religion. Believers can think that to reject God is to reject all that morally good.https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/882821336623697921 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
That doesn't mean we get complacent & assume they'll work it out or, even worse, claim this means that morality is relative & all are equal.
It does mean that there is hope. People who care about human wellbeing can be reached by other humans persuasive cases for a better approach
We have seen the case of the black man who convinced hundreds to leave the KKK by befriending them - shifting & widening their empathy.
Maajid Nawaz described being turned away from extremism by Amnesty supported by non-Islamist Brits caring about his welfare & rights.
This is what ppl who see calling someone a terrorist as worse than calling them a psychopath get wrong. The latter is much worse morally.
And people who conflate violence underlain by fundamentalist psychology with psychopathy make this same motive attribution error.
"They are just evil' rather than 'The premise underlying their morality is horribly wrong.'
That isn't the same as excusing it - poor things, they're just confused - because there is an easily accessible world of ideas & ethics.
But it does mean we go about fixing it differently. eg supporting reformers rather than undermining them.
And in less extreme cases, talking to ppl on opposing side w assumption they care about ppl rather than are racists or traitors to country.
If you have not read this book, please do! If it's on your reading list, move it up to first place. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0076O2VMI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 …
Conclusion to essay on Motivation Attribution Asymmetry. http://www.barrycarter.co/motivation-attribution-asymmetry/ …pic.twitter.com/qwWcZrJ81U
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." A lot of horrible things have happened under the guise of "doing good"; for the in-group.
But those "horrible things" speak to the problem of either the in group / out group thinking and / or the execution. NOT the intention!
Indeed, the intention is often good for the in-group, but has horrible side effects for the out-group, possibly unexpected ones.
History has also shown that good intentions can go sour even for the in-group.
Or they think they are doing good for both in- and out-group, because they don't understand the out-group or are misguided about it.
Or, the out group can misinterpret the intentions of the other group. It's not always the initiating group's fault.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.