> Perhaps put you biases aside?

I don't follow? Maybe try rephrasing?

> can be a racist / homophobe in secret

I can kind of see that, but, the KKK wears hoods?

> I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker

Hmm. I don't have an examined opinion on this, outside of general hesitation to go looking for problems for reasons such as confirmation bias and whatever the name is for what self-fulfilling-prophecies looks like this in kind of situation. Well, and maybe that if you're looking for justification you've already messed up. Just because you can somehow find a consolation prize doesn't mean you should have done something in the first pace.

Because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you to justify immoral behavior.

Edit: You don't need to tolerate bad behavior, but it goes both ways: You can't justify bad behavior in the name of policing other peoples' dumb actions.

Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.

> because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you

How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"?

I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths.

> Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.

Because I think you need to have more empathy for why people align themselves with causes you disagree with.

If you have the time, I suggest reading "They Thought they Were Free," by Milton Meyer. It's a well-known book that tries to answer why generally "good" people joined or supported the Nazi party in pre-WWII Germany.

It's been about a decade since I last read it, but I keep it on my shelf. What I remember, though, is that the reasons why Germans joined or supported the Nazi party vary quite greatly. I remember one passage about a man who basically liked dressing up in Nazi uniforms because he loved pageantry of Nazi rallies. Another was about some Jewish children who saw a Hitler Youth parade in a movie theater newsreel, and really wanted to join.

It's well worth the read if you need to understand why hate groups are so attractive to some people. (Or, to basically "examine your biases" towards people who you have "legitimate disagreement")

I've gotten my feet wet in terms of understanding that kind of thing, but not really gotten into it. Thanks for the book recommendation!

That said, as legit as your recommendations are, I don't see how this answers my question:

How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?

> How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?

Neutral 3rd party?

But then how do you know the party is neutral?

And, how does the neutral 3rd party determine the difference?

I think you'll find that right and wrong are often murky or politically motivated.

Are the world famous #1 gay couple Dolce and Gabbana homophobic? They oppose gay marriage, but in your American culture there are only two ways of life, you pick Republicans or Democrats and run with whatever their ministries of truth spew out.

> in your American culture there are only two ways of life

That might be the culture I come from, but it is not my culture, and I do not subscribe to it, claim responsibility for it, or claim ownership of it.

Then again, there's not a lot of people in my culture, they're pretty spread out, and it's hard to get them together in one place to do our thing, soooo.

America is a lot of different cultures. Most places are. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

Try to elaborate on why they are against gays marrying without the reasoning sounding homophobic.

It is a motte and bailey argument, most people agree with gays having access to legal marriage, the contentious part is religious marriage. Should we force preachers who don't believe that homosexuality is kosher to wed gay couples? A lot of people don't think so, and then they say they are against gay marriage even though they would be fine with legalizing them getting a legal marriage.

For example, do you think that we should force Muslim Imams to wed gay couples? I believe that it would be a fairly controversial topic even in left-wing circles.

The idea that gays are going around forcing religious people to marry them against their will is contrived and demonizing to gay people. Nobody forces someone to officiate their marriage. The question of gay marriage is entirely about the widespread legal ban on gay marriage and whether that is/was justified.