It makes sense for people to be classified as foes if their goals are different from mine. I'm not going to count a neo-Nazi as in ally, and rather than garnering a victory for my side, we can see what a loss would be if white supremacists gain more power.

I really don't think identifying clear foes helps in any manner. Even if they hold dangerous views.

If you disagree strongly with something specific, argue against it, say why, exactly, you consider the position dangerous.

Don't dismiss the person, as a whole.

Just because someone holds a bad viewpoint on one topic, does not mean that their viewpoint cannot be changed, or that their opinion on other issues is necessarily without value.

That's assuming that they can be reasoned with. If they don't see the dangers in genocide, massacres, ethnic cleansing, expansionism, etc. what are we supposed to do?

Well, take the necessary measures to prevent those atrocities, with others that agree - but in discussion, your goal should always be to collectively come to a better understanding.

I believe that ultimately, no matter what you do, you should *always* consider everyone, first and foremost, as your peers. If you need to defend yourself or others, that is unfortunate. It is good to fight for our collective interests. But I think that it is also important to keep in mind that our collective interests includes *everyone*, including those that are working in the opposite direction of yours.

I think identifying *foes* rarely helps you in your fight, and can often make the issue harder to resolve adequately, or permanently.

I can understand their anger, but the thing is there are those who I've tried to sway away with sources and evidence, but they just shut it down. Ideally I wouldn't have to identify people as foes, but I'm viewed as a foe by them so what other option do I have?

I do not see what you lose by *not* identifying them as foes.

If you want to make something better, you need to have something to strive for. Pointing out the current flaws is inevitably going to lead to conflict.

Pointing out the current flaws is inevitably going to lead to conflict.

Disagreement, well yes, by definition. But it doesn't require that you view anyone as an enemy.

What happens when you cannot come to an agreement?