Brilliant comment!

@MaskedRiderChris

"I think it's the extremists that make it difficult for the good discussions to happen, really."

I don't understand the thinking there, perhaps you can explain the thinking in such a way as to afford me the ability to understand.

People discussing their Might Makes Right ideology are doing so, and to them, they may be having good discussions, sharing notes, improving their ability to wield arbitrary power. People discussing competitive options to the Might Makes Right Rule, in any form it takes, such as false democracy, or false republicanism, or even false federalism, are people who can do so in private, in groups, in written form, and now on-line.

People can now form discussion groups that reach all over the world. So what exactly prevents you or me from having a good discussion on a topic that you consider to be worthy of the effort?

How about, for example, the concept of democracy? What prevents us from discussing that topic? I could offer information that proves that democracy is not majority rule as people are led to believe today, led by those in the Might Makes Right Cult.

Another example would be a reasonable, good, discussion on the meaning of the word republic. What exactly prevents such a discussion from happening? The word republic means the public thing, as in for the people, by the people, and of the people, and specifically not for special interest groups composed of a minority, a majority, or any division of the whole. A republic is for the people as a whole, or it is not a republic in fact. What prevents these types of discussions?

How about Federalism actual, not false federalism? Federalism is a concept by which groups of like-minded people join other groups of other like-minded people into voluntary mutual defense associations. False versions of the federal concept turn it up-side-down, such as is common in Nation-States which are despotic, arbitrary, Might Makes Right, organized crime cabals.

The extremists create parties of like-minded extremists having a ball as they extract power from their weaker victims. Their dialogues are extensive as they exchange viewpoints on just how to fleece the unsuspecting public thing. They are well-practiced at sharing the art of deception, extortion, and other more violent means to their criminal ends, all under the guise of "good" government, facilitated with "good" discussions.

What prevents the plebs from cooperating through good discussion on defensive topics? Are you saying that the extremists are simply overpowering their lesser-powered victims, preventing the victims from soldiering up an effective defense of the public from extremists? The extremists are powerful enough to censor discussion among their powerless victims?

I have had the same experience, somehow progressive types think that they are the left when in most circumstances they are actually far left of the spectrum on a lot of issues and cannot see a middle ground or even think of a centrist position to promote harmony.