> The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right.

Not really. More like, they voted in 2016 and won and "the other side" raised concerns about manipulation of voters and attempted to go through proper democratic channels to change things--which failed, so they accepted it and moved on until other debacles prompted similar action, and again, "they" accepted the results of those democratic processes, just like the game is supposed to work. The mainstream media has taken "them" seriously since 2016 and hasn't shut up about them since. Their legal cases are rejected because unlike what "the other side" did in 2016, they aren't following the process properly, have no legitimate evidence to present, they are totally incompetent, etc.

> We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate, and they are powerless to stop it.

The POTUS was their megaphone for 4 years. You are supposed to elect the person you feel best represents you and your interests. If "they" didn't do that, "they" shouldn't be trying to establish him as a monarch. "They" are traitors attempting to rob everyone that voted last year of their voice. Their turn with the microphone is up, but they refuse to yield it. Yes, the figurehead will no longer echo their ridiculous, conspiratorial, world view, so we are "squeezing them out" in a sense, but hey, it's called American democracy and it has worked that way for years.

They've had 4 years to deliver on their promises and win a second term. Guess what. They didn't. You know why? Because instead of delivering they ignored a deadly pandemic and let 369K Americans *die* and the economy crumble. Now is not the time to sympathize and "let the other side be heard" we've been doing it for 4 years and there's nothing worth listening to unless your ears are comforted by the melodious sounds of the collapse of the United States.

You're right, they're not scientists. And to regex away the things they actually believe (ists) instead of science shows that you don't really give the reality of what it actually means to be something like a, for example, racist the full weight it deserves. Being a racist means your beliefs actively lead to the disenfranchisement, or worse, direct violence on others, which also in turn eventually hurts you longer term (fyi).

I think part of the problem with politics in this country is this very tendency toward abstractions, false equivalences, forgetfulness, and tepidness in language. Stop pussyfooting around. Call a spade a spade. If we all stayed grounded and spoke extremely concretely about things, it'd be a lot easier to prevent fringe voices intermixing with moderate voices under the banner of of a single ideology whose elements can differ wildly in their extremities. The fact of the matter is, most people only care about the one or two issues they feel affect them the most in a given moment and rather than compromise and side with the platform that maybe doesn't give them what they want on that one issue but is generally better overall they refuse to do so and will sleep with the devil just to have their one need met, damn everything else. The planet could literally become a flaming ball of molten lava and eliminate all life on earth and certain constituents in the US would not give a damn as long as it meant abortion was illegal.

Here's roughly my theory of how American politics functioned over the past four years for several people in the "center right":

Guy A believes something relatively reasonable, e.g. "I don't want to get taxed too much."

Party L says, we want to help a bunch of people in the States out with free services. (Guy A thinks, hey that doesn't sound too bad), L continues, but to do it we need to tax you just a bit more than we do now. Guy A responds, well that sounded ok, but there's no way I'm letting you tax me more. Sorry.

Guy B comes along and believes something heinous. Let's say he's a classical anti-semite and thinks all Jewish people are criminal and the root of all evil, he hasn't gotten to the point of wanting genocide yet, but he's on the path.

Party R comes along. Party R says, we really care about guns. We want to make sure everybody can buy a gun, and here's why guns are great. Guy B likes this because he thinks he might need a gun in case he runs into a Jewish person. Guy A isn't a gun nut by any means but he wonders about taxes. Party R says they won't raise taxes at all, hell, maybe we'll lower them! Guy A is on board because even though Party L's initial proposition was more enticing, at least Party R won't increase his taxes.

Next thing you know the anti-semite and guy that just wants low taxes are both called "republican" or "on the right". Both their interests become intermingled and caught up in a narrative that stands to represent the entire "party". A candidate comes along that appeals to the intersection of these interests, maybe he says some things that make Guy A a little uncomfortable, but hey at least his taxes are low right? Soon enough the fringe beliefs of Guy B become a more dominant element in the "party line" since the candidate wanted to appeal to all the interests of his party.

And there you have it, Guy A becomes part of the anti-semitic party all because of his own stubbornness and refusal to compromise on a single point and then starts to feel attacked when "the other guys in Party L" start saying he and his guys in Party R are anti-semtic, because he isn't anti-semetic! But the attacks make him dig in more to Party R and gradually become more comfortable with supporting things that maybe would have bothered him before, like hating Jewish people, all because it's "his party" now and at least they still don't raise his taxes.

So yeah, Guy A might wind up feeling "unheard" in all of this and like he's being conflated with neo-nazis when he's not really a neo-nazi himself, but he made his decision. Taxes were so important to him that he turned a blind eye to moral issues and decided to double-down when those issues escalated and "be loyal". Don't feel sorry for these people. That's how representation works. It doesn't matter if you went with the neo-nazis because you want low taxes, you chose them to represent you, so you don't get to say "well I'm not really a neo-nazi because I just wanted low taxes", especially when you doubled down and are only bailing out in the final hour since you finally realize it's repudiate or go down with the ship and your flight mode kicks in. You may not be personally murdering people, but you are an enabler at that point. You made a stupid, amoral decision and you are culpable for that. You need to take responsibility for such a choice.

Now is not the time for sympathy toward "them". I did try to be sympathetic to the plight of this "unheard majority" in 2016. In 2021? Seriously? In order to even field such an argument after 4 years and a legitimate attempt to supplant the American flag for a flag with a single man's name on it seems to me completely delusional. Part of the reason things have gone this far is precisely because bad behavior has had zero consequences for this administration until maybe finally now. This president's incompetences has the death of 369k people and counting attached to it. Not to mention the jailed children, calls to foreign powers to help manipulate the 2020 elections, and deliberate lies to the citizenry about matters pertaining to their health (covid was supposed to "disappear" by Easter, remember?)