[gilded-lilly]

It is only possible as long as one side is able to have civil discourse, without labeling/demonizing/name calling and violently attacking their opponents. It’s quite hard to have a debate when people’s views are not only completely entrenched, they are simply not willing to give respect at all.

[rnd0]

small correction; it's only possible if both sides are capable and willing to set aside heated rhetoric. At this point in time, I honestly question if any of the sides are capable of honest engagement.

[gilded-lilly]

I think civil discourse is possible if reasonable debate is allowed. Unfortunately, for one side, it appears that reason itself is problematic for them and they refuse it.

[rnd0]

That can describe both the left and the right. I'd be very surprised if you weren't alluding to SJWs; but at the same time you're describing Qanon folks as well.

...and that's why we can't have discourse. No one can agree on what constitutes "reasonable debate".

[gilded-lilly]

Well, you’re conflating a fringe movement of radical conspiracy theorists with the average person who doesn’t go along with the woke agenda. That in itself is an example of what I’m talking about.

[rnd0]

..and in reply to my post I got unironic nonsense about "the woke agenda".

That validated my intuition and proved my point.

Thanks!

[gilded-lilly]

The “woke agenda” is a mainstream political shorthand. But I find it telling that you were able to infer that I was speaking about the left when I mentioned opposition to reason.

[rnd0]

"woke agenda" is not a mainstream political term, and the fact you state it is demonstrates both your own position (to the far right) and inability to step outside of that viewpoint and discuss issues from a genuinely detached viewpoint.

I hope that, like me, you enjoy the rest of your day.

[fleddr]

This is called being part of the problem. My side is fine.