[mastox]

Do you agreed with 100% of everything that the extremist of the Democratic (>insert proper political affiliation here<) side believe in? I suspect you would agree with most of the core philosophy but may disagree on some of messaging and actions by extreme groups.

[crooked-v]

Grover Norquist's influence is overwhelmingly mainstream [1] among Republican politicians, not extremist.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Prote...

[mastox]

Fair. But to say something as bold as understanding someone's political motivations, and ideology based on how politicians behave doesn't seem like good faith effort to understand the other side.

Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?

[crooked-v]

What does "SJWs" mean in this context?

[dredmorbius]

NB: you're not answering the questions asked, but are instead moving goalposts. Repeatedly.

[arrosenberg]

[flagged]

[mastox]

So it's Whataboutism when trying to point out others' hate? Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was a question to show that both sides are capable of doing horrible things to each other. And that the extremists of any group probably aren't the best at accurately representing the majority's philosophical thinking. Both sides deserve the hate. I'm okay with talking about the hate, but can we be intellectually honest and say both sides have made mistakes.

So I agree Whataboutism isn't attractive.