When it comes to building community in the context of societal change, a frequently debated concern is how to deal with harmful people within those communities. The core question is whether to sever ties and exclude such individuals or to remain engaged with them in hopes of promoting systemic change from within. Many argue that significant societal progress requires inclusivity and dialogue, even with those who may hold harmful beliefs or behaviors. Constructive engagement can sometimes lead to transformation, fostering understanding and potentially converting opposition into allyship. This approach relies heavily on genuine good faith efforts—meaning that all parties involved must be sincerely committed to positive change and collective growth. On the other hand, remaining in close association with harmful actors can pose real risks. It might normalize or enable toxic behaviors, cause harm to vulnerable community members, and slow down progress by necessitating continuous conflict management. In certain cases, the harmful influence can be so pervasive that it undermines the very foundation of the community’s goals. The decision often depends on the specific context and goals of the community. For activists aiming for systemic societal change, careful evaluation is essential: Does maintaining association with harmful people offer more opportunity for reform, or does it hinder progress by tolerating bad behavior? One effective strategy may be establishing clear community standards and accountability measures. This includes defining what constitutes harmful behavior, enforcing consequences when those boundaries are crossed, and fostering a culture of respect and safety. Such frameworks help balance inclusivity with protection for the community. Ultimately, building community with harmful people is a nuanced, complex challenge. Encouraging honest conversations about these difficulties can help communities evolve stronger and more resilient. Continuous reflection, willingness to adapt, and prioritizing collective well-being are key to navigating this dilemma successfully.