This is not just a problem between the Democrats and Republicans, but its also becoming clearly visible in the progressive-moderate schism in the Democratic Party itself.

Similar, at least in the recent past, divides do exist in the republican party. Libertarian elements were opposed to George W Bush's war in Iraq for example.

​

​

Obviously I understand that some views are severely skewed and don’t deserve the light of day to be argued (ex. all Mexicans are rapists, a wall will stop immigration, the coronavirus is a hoax, climate change isn’t real, Bernie Sanders is a communist), but when it comes to genuine issues of concern, I think time should be taken to civilly argue them.

How do you know when a viewed is too skewed to argue? Doesn't that mean now you are relying on your own biases to determine whether something is reasonable to discuss or not?

I think this simply shows you have a personal limit for discussion that stops at calling Bernie Sanders a communist, for example. I agree that thinking he is a communist is ridiculous. However, I'm just pointing out that your own limit is kind of arbirrary and up to personal interpretation.