How? This is the part where most of these conversations break down. Those on the left can't possibly fathom that those on the right don't consider being racist, sexist or homophobic to be a capital offense. The number of people who believe exactly as I suggested they do are far more than you're comfortable admitting, even in a hypothetical. And that's before we even get into the shifting definitions of those words since their introduction into American politics.
> But is that really BLM's motto these days?
Google "BLM kill all whites". I'd provide specific links, but HN doesn't really accommodate that very well.
> Then you can't do anything but oppose BLM
That's not the tactic most of the left are taking, though. They're still supporting BLM, even though they're inciting violence and calling for the death of white babies. Same with Antifa, who have attacked peaceful demonstrations.
You seem like a reasonable person, but the people you're aligning yourself with are not, by your own definition.
Who do you think I'm aligning myself with? I'm calling for the media to get out of their bubble and actually listen to and understand the rest of the country. Who does that make me "aligning with", and how does it do so?
That's why I said "to some degree". Let me state it in reverse: Knowing only a strawman version of the other side's views will make it less possible for the two sides to come together.
There is some hope that, when you see your opponents as having a position that makes some sense, even though you don't agree with it, you can regard them as something other than ignorant hicks who are too stupid to understand how much smarter everyone else is. You can lose an election and not feel that ignorance and propaganda defeated the side of the right. You can stop hating.
> Let's say the right is exactly as racist, sexist and homophobic as the left currently thinks and that more than 50% of the American people actually, truly want a return to the days when homosexuality was outlawed, blacks were slaves and women were property. How does understanding that make politics more sane?
Let's not say that. Instead, let's say that someone could vote for Trump (or at least against Hillary) without being racist, sexist, and homophobic. Understanding why they voted for Trump might make politics more sane. (Or again, take the opposite - saying that they're all racist, sexist homophobes and therefore can be ignored and treated with contempt certainly does not make politics more sane.)
> ... considering BLM's motto these days is 'kill all whites'. I don't know about you, but as a white man, I find it unlikely that I would ever sympathize with a sentiment that means I no longer exist.
Obviously, no compromise is possible with such a position. But is that really BLM's motto these days? Can you document that it is? Because I've never heard that.
But even if that is BLM's position, and you can't compromise with it, then what? Then you can't do anything but oppose BLM, and explain why as clearly as you can. The proper response, though, is not to say "Therefore clearly BLM has no legitimate grievances" or "Therefore all blacks are irrational killers".