The truth isn't in the fucking middle people.

Every so often some friends on my Facebook feeds engage in a short spate of liking articles with opinions I disagree with. Recently it has been stuff like this, articles that attempt to convince us that we should have more respect and engage with those whose opinions we disagree with.

To an extent this is true, for example, I dislike the incredibly popular TV series Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, I may have on occasion spoken disparagingly of people who do like them, and they have done likewise to me, I of course hold the correct opinion and the millions of fans who disagree with me are the lowest of life forms, but if I am being magnanimous, I can admit that there are legitimate reasons why they might feel differently and that is, technically, okay.
Yes I am joking, I have no problem with people who like those shows, and can acknowledge their quality while at the same time recognizing they aren't for me, and in stuff like entertainment preferences and basically anything that isn't an outright denial of reality or that is hurting others I totally support being able to see and respect opposing viewpoints.

But there is a point where the other side's opinions are so reprehensible that there is no common ground, the article I linked suggests that we should stop liking and sharing articles on social media that do nothing but reinforce our existing opinions, and that we should take more care to research the complicated issues that we hold strong opinions about, he uses gun control as an example, the writer, in addition to having a punchable face(yes I am attacking his looks, deal with it) is very wrong here.

 Let's take his example since he was so good as to bring it up, one side wants to make firearms harder to access so as to prevent thousands of deaths a year, the other side wants guns so they can kill minorities defend their property and freedoms from thugs and the government. Okay that isn't fair, one side wants restrictions on firearm sales as what studies have been allowed to be done have shown that simple things like background checks help prevent firearm deaths, the other side wants to be able to kill minorities defend their homes and jerk off while imagining overthrowing the government.
The two sides aren't arguing the same points is what I am saying here, there is one side wanting something rational, and the other side does not have a good argument for why to not do it so they talk about "are freedoms!" instead.

Articles like the one above are essentially tone policing for the millennial crowd, pleading for respectable discourse while implying that the truth on almost any issue is somewhere in the middle when they suggest that a lot of controversial topics are really complicated.

The problem is, they really aren't, oh sure some are, economic policies, trade deals, and so on take education, or at least a serious reading of good sources to form an informed opinion on, but that shit isn't what this guy is talking about.

Let's take Feminism, our author links a tweet from some random goober thanking those on Twitter for educating him and teaching him some things about the movement, in the context of the article, this implies that we might have something to learn from Feminism's opponents as well, at first glance it might seem a complicated topic, with big words like intersectionality and opponents pointing out every instance where a man is treated unfairly to show that there are problems on both sides, but when you get right down to it, Feminism is about treating everyone equally, and it's opponents either do not believe in that, or are deluded enough to think that is already happening, either way, we don't, and there isn't a middle ground to be had there.

Same with racists, be it straight up white power idiots or more recently converted folks scared of terrorists(refugees) who want to keep an eye on Islam, you know, just until we figure out what is going on. Or Ben Carson supporters who think he has educated and nuanced policies.

The two sides do not have a lot to teach each other, one side could teach the other a lot of useful stuff sure, but by an large it isn't the liberal side that needs to learn stuff, outside of the out there anti-science crowd anyway.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is totally possible to have opinions that are objectively wrong, and if you hold those opinions neither I, nor anyone else, are required to go out of our way to make you feel good about it, if your feelings are hurt because I called you a racist piece of shit, use this opportunity to maybe look up the definition of racism and ask yourself "am a I racist  piece of shit?" The answer may be yes, it probably is yes, decide if you are comfortable with that, maybe you are! Good for you I guess, but if you aren't, then we can start to have a talk.

If anyone cares to jump on me for simplifying some positions for the purpose of this article, feel free to start a discussion with me and I will expand on them, at great length if you like, odds are I won't change them though.