>> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." > I think this is the key quote. It should really be

>> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." > I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. There's a difference between "understand" and "make a passionate argument for" a given position. It's become standard for just about any ideological position to claim that anyone who disagrees "doesn't really understand" and to primarily use extreme emotions paired with unverifiable claims. At what point does one "understand" in these conditions? The idea that most issues today have two reasonable sides arguing is itself an ideology. Often there's not even one reasonable position.