One of the things I have trouble fully understanding is how stingy most people are with their understanding of others. Is anyone really that difficult to understand? A while back I saw bits of an interview with Charles Manson in prison. Hm - was I going to find him totally impossible to understand? No, it turns out. What about inhuman? No. Entirely unrelatable? No. Did I fully understand his motives and what makes him tick? No. Would I propose that anyone do what he did? No. Do I hate him when he's contained and no danger to anyone? No.

Why is this confusing? It seems to confuse everyone!

Of course, there's no need for you to answer those the way I have. You can feel your own way. But the way I feel is not really a contradiction. It isn't scandalous, either, or - I think, or hope - harmful or wrong. The show Mindhunter illustrates this difference between how most people feel about criminals who could be seen as inhuman and evil, and how, say, a forensic psychologist might feel.

I think it's the whole excusing/condoning question. We're all afraid that if we show any sympathy, empathy, understanding, or compassion toward certain people, we will be promoting their wrongdoing, or helping them get away with it.

Is that actually how this works, though? People have always seemed, to me, hyper-paranoid about this "condoning" issue, to the point that they walk around unintentionally presenting themselves as ignorant. There is not much reason to be proud of ignorance, and even less reason to be proud of hatred, whoever the target of that might be. Sometimes anger is really justified and even hatred is entirely understandable. But lack of anger can also be justified, and lack of hatred can also be entirely understandable.

Neutralize a threat. Beyond that, there's little to no value added by hatred and refusal to understand (in my opinion, of course).