Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
You are just playing the same dishonest game as Mac by trying to define your lock-step orthodoxy as the norm, and anything short of that as "extreme".I would argue that this approach works fine, if we assume that each side has equal legitimacy.
For example, when debating whether to concentrate on offense or defense in football, this system works. If, however, the 'offense' side gets overtaken by a contingent advocating a six-tight end spread, dual quarterbacks, and never punting, then demonstrating understanding and listening to their schemes will only lead to this obviously foolish plan being considered equally legitimate as tried and tested defensive schemes. Then, everyone gets frustrated, people stop watching, and the sport dwindles away.
You have been comparing the views of MSNBC and FOX throughout this thread, which is fine, but the right-wing media picture includes a lot more than FOX. I would encourage you to also include the likes of Newsmax and OAN, whose views are indicative of the even farther, extreme right who now dominate the right wing of politics, and who have a lot more legitimacy now than they had even five years ago. There are no equivalent far-left outlets with anywhere near such popularity.
When a moderate tries to understand an extreme, it gives the extreme legitimacy it shouldn't have. In that case, trying to empathize actually harms the whole system.
You speak of "moderate" and "extreme" as inhabiting locations on the political spectrum FAR to the left of where they exist in reality.