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).
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.
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.
Contact info in bio.
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.
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.
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.
This is a great example of how communication between people with different outlooks breaks down. We'll eventually get frustrated, call it quits, and never speak again. It's the exact pattern played out in miniature.
The example you gave with having to make friends to get a good grade, I'm unsure how that relates to compromising your morals. Is that an experience you personally went through? What was that like for you?
I will repeat and rephase the answer which you may have misunderstood:
Circumstances, like someone preventing one's self from being assaulted every day by racists or racial supremacists, seems like a pretty clear cut example of someone who has less privilege.
Maybe those other people were talking about a friend? Maybe they were just talking about things in general and had no specific situation in mind.
I was just giving some possible situations or hypotheticals that would justify their arguments that they made.
But I am glad you were able to basically agree with me here that their arguments were justified in certain circumstances.