>You routinely forgive passionate and edgy behavior by people who agree with you Yes, I am guilty of this at times. I would hope and expect to be called out fo

>You routinely forgive passionate and edgy behavior by people who agree with you Yes, I am guilty of this at times. I would hope and expect to be called out for it in such spaces. >I argue you're assessment of "communication and building bridges" and and "bashing rather than having a conversation" are fundamentally subjective No, I disagree. If someone comes into a discussion space and dismisses someone else's points by simply calling them a (libtard|fascist|fraud), that's just a textbook ad hominem attack. This is objectively decidable - the person is not engaging with the contents of the other person's view, but is rather attacking the speaker themselves. This is one example, but there are others: threats and other forms of verbal abuse, for example. They're pretty evident to anyone who's not emotionally involved in the conversation. I would like to keep all of this behavior out of such spaces, and I think it's possible to build a culture that discourages it. I would ask you this: what's the alternative? Simply accept the vitriol between opposing sides of our political arguments and give up on any hope of connecting with people with significantly differing views? (In the US) we have a two-party political system, should we just accept the endless back-and-forth power struggle between the two sides? We all have a vote, and if we can't reach across the aisle to those we disagree with, how can we ever hope to make progress?