[ratww]

A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc.

Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?

[throw0101a]

> People were calling Pence a traitor

More than that:

> Others called for Vice President Mike Pence — who enraged Trump when he acknowledged that he did not have the power to unilaterally throw out electoral college votes — to be tried for treason. One Facebook post, quickly deleted, said Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be hanged.

* https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-...

See also:

* https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-...

[LetsPlayNice]

I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?

[LetsPlayNice]

ratww, I didn't intend to suggest perfection from either side. But, only one side wants to censor the other for their opinion, the manner in which they convey it, or broad association with extremists by way of similar beliefs on a much narrower subset of ideas.

My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion.

Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".

[ratww]

I never mentioned anything about censorship here, so I don't see how this applies to my reply.

What I was objecting here is the theory that people on the right has been radicalised due to the left not wanting to discuss. I'm just demonstrating that not only the left wants to speak to the extremists, but also the right itself wants (Pence and Fox News). But the extremists don't care: they're even attacking both left and right preemptively. There's zero interest from extremists to understand opposing opinions.

This theory that the left is to blame for the radicalisation of those people holds absolutely no water.

[nxc18]

It’s really tiresome seeing the “Republicans are victims of the left“ meme over and over. You’ve controlled the government for years. You’ve mismanaged the pandemic, killing more Americans than world war 2. We’re not supposed to take the president’s words literally, unless he’s saying something that you happen to personally agree with.

And no, discussing studies doesn’t work. See the anti-vax debate. We’ve been pointing out the science on climate change and vaccines, clearly and respectfully, for _decades_ and it has not mattered.

I’ve never seen anyone directly start a persuasive argument with “you’re an idiot Trumper”. It isn’t that common. Your helpless victim attitude is showing.

Trump had every opportunity to win this election rightfully. He is not a victim and neither are you or his supporters. Stop playing one.

[ratww]

You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other.

To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd.

About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation.

And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that.

Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.

[zepto]

The problem with this is that it’s black and white.

Yes, there are clearly completely intractable extremists who won’t engage in good faith.

But there are a lot of their people who will.

[ratww]

Absolutely, and I acknowledge that: the right itself is full of completely reasonable people that is being shunned by some of the extremists.

On the other hand, the same thing should apply to the left! Just because someone on the left has not been using logical arguments and acting in bad faith, it doesn't mean the whole left is doing it. People don't get a free pass on claiming "the left caused it" or (EDIT) "the left not talking to them is the reason they have this opinion".

[zepto]

‘"the left caused it"’

I agree that this is obvious bullishit.

But it’s also bullshit to say ‘the right caused it’.

How many people are getting a free pass on saying that right now?

[ratww]

Wait, just so we're on the same page: by "the left caused it" I mean that I don't believe the theory that "the left is to blame for people having extremist opinions because the left doesn't want to talk to them". Not some specific event.

I also believe that blaming the whole right for anything is incorrect too, and repeatedly mentioned that some of the right are being shunned by extremists too.