Conservative

If we don’t allow discourse with conservatives in good faith for things that a just differences in opinion such as gun control measures shouldn’t infringe their right to own a gun, health care reform should be incremental and gradual and not separate them from their preferred private practitioner, or that private industry might be better stewards of certain services than public government, without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever, then expect those conservatives to have discourse with someone who will.

I don't think that's something that we (general we) are failing to do. Conservatives aren't getting called fascists for their opinions on gun control or privatization. They get called fascists for taking away peoples rights, for their open calls to end democracy, for their defense of neo nazis, etc.

I am being idealistic for sure, but i think its equally nihilistic to think all conservatives are OK with or are actively trying for extermination of non-white non-cis people. I think we will have to disagree and thats ok.

Not all Germans who voted for Hitler were actively trying for the extermination of jews. It's not an issue of what they are actively trying for or want (at least for a large chunk of them).

This issue is that they are ok with supporting politicians who are actively trying for or want extermination.

There are conservatives that think that non-heteronormative people shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t have rights. Very few. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that. Usually, the debate is over what a right is. Many people accept trans people, but they do not think they should be forced by law to use whatever pro-nouns people want or that they should compete in sports opposite of their biological sex. You will see most debates sit around those points. I use whatever pronouns a person wants except they or them. It's just polite. I do see why people argue over it, but that's just me. To me, it's the same as wanting to be called Bob if my name is Robert.

without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever

That is the hard part, most liberals don't want to have a conversation, they want to scream fascist/nazi or whatever.

And I won’t put this blame entirely on the left wing, the internet has made it easier than ever for conservatives (and progressives, to a lesser extent) to pick the “junk food” option of listening to only voices that validate their beliefs instead of challenging them.

I would say both sides are just as guilty. Twitter, Reddit, Lemmy are all know for extreme left views.

I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.

Esteemed, you say? Why, aren't you kind!

Anyway, yes, and an invalid argument doesn't make dialogue impossible, contrary to the entire virtual world of social media. His argument is invalid. I posted the article and I ultimately disagree with the conclusion, even if I were to treat the argument as valid. Nonetheless, there's still value in considering the other premises of his arguments.

It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication.

Yes, but people who believe this are who we have to deal with. It doesn't matter how stupid it is or how misinformed we believe them to be, American politics is going to be influenced by this absolute fabrication. It is being influenced by it now. The choice for is how we handle it.

And, if the lesson isn't clear, I'm against disenfranchising these people just because I think they're completely removed from reality, and, in fact, would prefer that everyone have a real opportunity to (consider perspectives they fundamentally disagree with and) engage civically and politically.

This article supports this odd mindset and is unhelpful to maintaining a healthy democracy.

This is it exactly! I think the author of this article honestly believes that a healthy American democracy, the kind that we've had for a couple hundred years now, is gone and won't come back. So yeah, it's not trying to help maintain that version of democracy. An odd mindset indeed.

But, they say:

Some will ask: Is this symmetrical entrenchment bad for democracy? The answer is, it depends on how we define democracy. The ancient Greeks gave us the very word, and yet the Athenians expressed people-power through sortition, drawing by lot and ruling through councils. Athens did not have political parties and election campaigns. That doesn’t make them bad democrats, it makes them a different kind of democrat. And maybe their past is our future.

American democracy isn't the only framework of democracy available. He's arguing that our version of democracy looks more like the old Roman version, so why not just do that?

So, I agree with you partially, this article doesn't help get us back to where we were. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him. But, I think there's an interesting idea here nonetheless. I'm not keen on the implication that America is the modern-day Rome, but is voting really the only process that legitimates the democratic ideal? If not, then why can't we implement these different processes so that people are more effectively able to participate in governing?

As a matter of fact, Morris Fiorina, a conservative political scientist I'm tangentially aware of, wrote an interesting paper titled "Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement". He argues that the increase in civic engagement over the past century or so is directly and ironically responsible for our dissatisfaction with the political process. Basically, special interests are inclined to participate and regular people aren't, despite the ease with which both might participate. But since special interests actually participate, it's their views that are most often represented. Fiorina's solution to the problem as he identified it? Encourage more civic engagement. Go all in on democracy.

At least, that's how I'm looking at this. It's why I prefer the blue solution over the red one, even if they are opposites sides of the same American democratic coin.