[zepto]

I think that one possible disconnect is the issue of ‘extremism’. I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else.

For example, I think things like saying ‘whiteness’ is the problem, is not particularly associated with the extremes and yet very much are part of the cause of the problem. Similarly, calling everyone on the left a snowflake or a communist, is not only the purview of extremists.

[ratww]

> I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else.

I haven't made any black and white division between extremists and anyone else. I always said "large portion of extremists", "a large part of climate change deniers", etc.

What I'm replying to here is the multiple posts (not yours) saying that the problem is that some people on the left have been communicating in a combative/ineffective manner.

While this is true, I don't believe this is the source of the problem. And demanding perfection from one side while absolving the other is not a fair tactic. It's pure bullshit. Why must the left be flawless? In fact, it's a bit condescending to the extremists.

[zepto]

I don’t believe it is the only source. However the situation is a non-exclusive OR. When either side does this, they become part of the cause. The behavior is the source of the problem - not a side.

No ‘side’ can claim not to be the cause unless it can curb the behavior. The left cannot curb the right behaving unreasonably, but it might be able to curb unreason on its own side.

However this: “demanding perfection from one side while absolving the other” seems like a straw man. If this is being done, it’s clearly being done by the right and the left.

When the right say the left are causing the problem by doing this, they are correct. You are also correct to say they aren’t the only ones causing it.

However the left cannot improve the situation by pointing fingers at the right and doubling down.

The left doesn’t have to be ‘flawless’, but if it’s not better than the right, then how does it expect to improve anything?

[ratww]

It's not a strawman. The posts I answered virtually said that the reason extremists still hold their extreme position is due to "the left" being too combative and being unable to create arguments to debate with the extremists. Note I'm not saying "the right" to refer to them.

I'm not talking about "the right" here. The right is too varied (as is the left). I'm talking about extremists.

I pointed out that some extremists are not even willing to listen to people on the right itself. Pence and Fox News are definitely not calling people "idiot trumpsters" and are still being attacked by them.

It's not even a matter of the left trying to engage in discussion. People have screamed at me and called me "sheeple" for wearing a mask in the supermarket. How do you engage? I just left. Am I the cause of the problem for not speaking a word before or after the engagement?

The left can't improve the situation by trying to debate with people that's unwilling to debate in the first place, period.

[zepto]

“The left can't improve the situation by trying to debate with people that's unwilling to debate in the first place, period.“

This is true.

However the left can improve the situation by being willing to debate people who are willing to debate, and yet casual dismissals or irrelevances about whiteness and racism stop that dead.

Look at this comment as an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698039

By not doing so, they do create the climate for extremism, frankly at both ends.

Extremism is a problem, but it’s a false dichotomy to think of extremism as somehow independent of what everyone else does.

[8note]

The people who claim to be willing to debate aren't necessarily willing to debate though. Someone like a Richard Spencer is really looking to gish gallop and not debate