> OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. That's perfectly reasonable. I was still focused on the

> OK, but I'm talking about those cases where people have already provided reasons not to trust them. That's perfectly reasonable. I was still focused on the "Us vs. Them" attitude, which doesn't apply here. If you haven't met or interacted with someone, but you choose to categorize that person in the "Them" group, that is unreasonable. It can be tricky when individuals seem to put themselves in your "Them" group. When that happens, it's probably a good idea to stop, and take care to define what "Them" entails, and how that individual fits there. If you don't, that person may be unjustly labeled by you, and you by them. When we label each other, and create meta-groups to dislike, that creates a divide that isn't helpful for either side, because each side is mischaracterized, and all nuance is ignored. > until they abandon such choices My advice is to be careful not to judge others solely by the things you dislike about them. The details you focus on are not the entirety of their character. If someone only finds friendship in a group that promotes ideas that you are opposed to, that person is likely to promote those ideas. If you befriend that person, you can begin on common ground, and work together toward ideas that you agree to be worthwhile. That person will thereby have less focus on the idea you don't like. None of us is perfect, and we can certainly all find faults in one another. If we all reject others for the faults we find in them, we will all be rejected.