I perceive you as looking at a part of the picture and then deciding that it's the entire landscape and being too wrapped up in an all-or-nothing outlook. If you Google "abortion rights protests" and click on images you will get a sea of female faces with only a few men in them. The fact that there are some men who are being vocal about the rollback of abortion rights does not negate the fact that overwhelmingly, it is angry and distraught women who are making up the bulk of the protests, and who are making up the preponderance of the very emotional rhetoric -the sort that D was complaining about. It may well be that more men would like to be more involved and feel they've been shut out but that is another topic - one which doesn't negate the fact that as of now, this protest is overwhelmingly made up of and led by women. So, when D complains about angry protestors, he's primarily complaining about angry women. QED
According to the study I linked to you, both Democrats and Republicans are becoming more extreme as a way to get votes. The fact that most Americans are somewhere in the center drives this strategy as a way to differentiate between parties.
"The two major political parties have been getting more and more polarized since World War II, while historical data indicates the average American voter remains just as moderate on key issues and policies as they always have been," Abrams said.
The team found that polarization is instead tied to the ideological homogeneity within the constituencies of the two major parties. To differentiate themselves, the politicians of the parties move further away from the center."
It may not be ideal for creating a more civil society, but it is a statement of observable fact that political extremism is a tactic that both parties use to obtain more votes. Saying that it doesn't pay is not in alignment with that reality. And, being really angry and emotional does not have complete and total overlap with holding extreme views. Those often are two separate things and continuing to conflate them, just like continuing to conflate public sentiment with political coalition building, muddies the waters and leads to imprecise debate.
Women's suffrage began with intelligent people holding conferences and crafting draft legislation, talking through all of the aspects, of which there was not complete agreement, and coming to a consensus about what they were asking for. - then presenting it. When that was rebuffed, they attempted to vote and then filed lawsuits when they were once again rebuffed, and sometimes fined or jailed for attempting. Things like marches, sit-ins, and truly angry rhetoric only came about after trying to be reasonable repeatedly failed. Peaceful marches and the like often found women being beaten, spat upon, and harangued - at times by the police. This is the history of every single social justice movement ever in America, and probably the world. Rights are rarely given. They are almost always taken. It shouldn't have to be that way, but it is.
In a dominance hierarchy system, the world is envisioned as win/lose and might makes right. In order for me to win, you have to lose, and if you are not "strong" enough to take what you want, I'm certainly not going to give it to you. That's not the world I want to live in, and I write often about ways to envision a more partnership-oriented society where looking for the win/win is the norm. But we aren't there yet. I support continuing to try to find that, and as I already said, if D had written something to that effect, I would have been all for it. Instead, he made the people who are hurting the most the problem, and I'm not OK with that.
I agree that there is probably not really anything more to say here, but feel free if you decide you want to.
