> I've found that good-intentioned anything that is otherwise considered "bad" isn't actually good-intentioned, it's just perceived that way and used as an excuse for ill-treatment of those they don't like.

I think it depends on what you mean, precisely by "good-intentioned". I'm definitely "on the right" (in a low-dimensional sense, which is how most people think), but while left-leaning culture warriors annoy/frustrate (depending on how enlightened of a mood I'm in) me, I happen to believe they are in the vast majority of cases motivated by genuinely good intentions. I doubt I would differ much in desired end state goal for the world, but I differ strongly on the path we should take to get there, as well as the current state of objective reality (a core root cause of the never ending culture wars is a low-dimensional perception of reality, and an ignorance of the degree to which one's subconscious is involved in forming that perception). Culture warriors on the right though, I would say would score much lower on the "genuinely having good intentions" scale. However, I have a feeling that almost without exception, if you dig down within each person to the very core of their being, most people are good. It's just that life has a way of getting in the way and messing things up, which affects an individual's psychology, and therefore their actions (and reactions, which in turn invoke reactions in others, and around and around we go).

> I have a friend that comes across as pretty racist when he talks politics

If he's intellectually confident and curious enough, why don't you propose to him that the two of you choose one particular topic, and analyze the hell out if it, the goal being to, to the best of your abilities, figure out what the actual high-dimensional reality (truth) is of the situation, as well as what your respective actual, highly detailed & nuanced opinions are on the matter. These conversations can be very interesting and a lot of fun, if you can manage to find someone who can bear having them.

I have a good friend who has the IQ and base psychological knowledge to discuss such things, but because of discrimination he experienced throughout his life (something I've had the good fortune of not experiencing) seems unable to emotionally detach enough to discuss them (or, he has thought about it and decided that doing so might run the risk of pulling off the psychological scars he's managed to form that have finally brought him some peace on the matter - and he might not be wrong).

> This is a complicated issue, but I have found that discourse over this topic is nearly impossible to have in public with people that disagree with you.

Complicated is a massive understatement, but you're absolutely right. But is anyone ever going to do anything intelligent (that acknowledges and accounts for the complexity of human psychology) about it is the question, or should we just throw up our arms and let the world burn? Should passionate discussions that stray into ideological territory be censored on platforms where intelligent people who are intellectually capable of discussing them (if they could be convinced to put down their weapons that is) congregate be banned because it inevitably turns into a shit show (for the reasons mentioned above), or could we perhaps find a way to increase the level of consciousness of everyone, by politely bringing attention to conscious misinterpretations of reality formed by subconscious heuristics (many examples of which appear in the comments on this very webpage - the problem is right in front of our eyes, but so hard to see if you don't know what you're looking for)? I have no idea, but it seems like a good question.

If I was in charge, I would add "Be conscious. Be ever mindful of the complexities of life and human psychology that are so easy to see in others, but so hard to see in yourself. Or at least try." One might argue that this is what is meant by "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.", but I believe there is an important distinction. "Same same, but different."

Occasionally you come across people like Scott Alexander who are able to see what's going on with people, but they are few and far between.

Here is a good article that discusses how the media plays into things:

Complicating the Narratives: What if journalists covered controversial issues differently — based on how humans actually behave when they are polarized and suspicious?

https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-t...