The very country we (I’m assuming you’re American apologies if not) are sitting in was founded by a group of, admittedly rich old white men, coming together and convincing their oppositions to not just go to war against the greatest power of their time, but afterwards to come together as a single unified country through a large number of compromises.

You were quick to list the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand, but for every example you listed there is someone like Merkel, Obama, etc. on the other side.

It comes down to both our ideologies being wrong. No you can’t talk your way through everything and no you can’t fight your way through everything either. You have to wade through the muck in the middle, and because that muck isn’t sexy very few people are actually willing to do it.

This seems like a self-defeating argument - why didn't the American revolutionaries just hug it out with King George? You take the fact of their going to war as a given, like the weather, then turn around and pour scorn on grandparent posters' firm opposition to autocracy and level of knowledge ('the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand').

You seem to be characterizing ideologies as fight everything out vs talk everything out, and then saying that centrism is the 'muck in the middle' where compromises are brokered. Why, then would you invalidate the whole concept of opposition and dismiss them as ignorant?

> If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention.

This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both positive and negative.

It all depends on how an individual feels about the status quo.

A. You can be moderate because you believe moderate actions will bring about radical change, or

B. You can be a moderate because you believe things are good to some degree as they are, and any actions should result in moderate changes.

I'm inclined to believe the calls to moderate discourse come from the latter group. "Rational discourse" stands in opposition to "irrational discourse", with implied irrational demands.

In other words, if you can't see why group X would want something, you won't see anything group X does to get that as rational.

I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.

What do you mean 'rationalize their weaknesses'? I ask because it sounds like you're propounding a 'lose-lose' strategy.