I don't think you have to "turn a blind eye". It's not a zero-sum game. But it does mean you have to engage with people. Shunning would be the opposite of that.

The best modern-day example of how we should all live is probably Daryl Davis...

"It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy — it doesn't have to be about race, it could be about anything...you will find that you both have something in common."

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

I think what you're trying to say is that compassion is a more effective tool for bringing people back into the fold of widely accepted facts and norms, and you offer Daryl Davis as an example.

I hear what you're saying, but I think Daryl Davis is an inexplicable exception, not the rule. I think most people know someone that has held onto truly shocking beliefs for decades, and hasn't responded to reason or compassion.

> bringing people back into the fold of widely accepted facts and norms

> held onto truly shocking beliefs

Can you see the extreme subjectivity in your comments? Why should your opinion of what's a norm or shocking be the ultimate judge? What if its your ideas which are actually shocking and violate the norms? For example, you should believe in a god because that's normal and if you're an exception, you need to be brought back into the fold of believers.

Okay, believing (without evidence) that high ranking Democrats, [sic] globalist Jews, celebrities, and coastal elites are eating aborted babies and performing satanic rituals involving pedophilia and human sacrifice is a truly shocking belief.

I'm okay with being extremely subjective and saying that's actually shocking. Claims that strong should be accompanied by at least circumstantial evidence. If you don't believe this is a real world view that people are trying to spread, look up Q-Anon.

I don't doubt that you find those beliefs shocking. But why do you see it as a given that they should be changed? You probably hold beliefs that others find shocking and would like to persuade you out of. Are you willing to be changed by them too? Even if "them" is, say, Islamic fundamentalists? Maybe it's OK that different people have different beliefs and you should be no more frustrated in your inability to change them than they are at their inability to change you.

No solution is perfect, but I can't doubt that the world would be a better place if more people tried a little compassion and outreach first instead of going straight to assuming the worst and shunning.

Everyone enforces norms some way or another, but their statement implies an unwillingness to forgive transgressions, which isn't a given. Nowadays people's mistakes quite easily become viral memes that are their legacy. Huge mobs of shallowly interested detractors are unforgiving and can cause disproportionate harm.

> Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes.

To me, this does not seem logical (for the dictionary definition of "condone"). Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

This was related to the parent comment that asked, rhetorically, if visiting an incarcerated rapist meant that you condoned rape.

I was pointing out that visiting a criminal does not directly imply that you condoned the actions that landed them in prison. However, if you know someone that is committing crimes, and you do nothing to stop them, then you do condone their behavior. I hope that clears it up?