Okay so - person A commits an act which person B believes to be a betrayal. Community opinion splits. Intuitions go either way. Particularly - those who converse more with A and have greater allegiance with him, view the matter as he does, and vice versa with person B.
As per the principle advocated in the article - B hates A and refuses to further interact. And that's it. If they're lucky - they'll cause a divisive rift in their entire social group.
I've seen many examples of above stated sort of case. I haven't seen that many where it's just clearly obvious that one person was the a-hole - to the point where intuitions on the matter don't split to a significant degree. But of course most people when IN the situation believe that it is in fact black and white - just as this author supposes. Well - more often than not, that's hubris.
So here is some contrarian advice.
As I see it - trust and understanding only comes after the overcoming of a thousand mis-understandings. It comes after a mountain of forgiveness from both sides. I've never had a single friendship of any significance that did not involve a large degree of conflict.
So take some time to cool off - let some water flow under the bridge - then call em up and buy em a beer. Admit that you were probably just as much of an a-hole, even if you don't entirely understand why - and talk to the guy as much as you can to figure out if maybe... just maybe... you got things wrong.
