I don't think I agree. I'm perfectly willing to have conversations with people who disagree strongly with me, if they're actually willing to have a conversation. The people I'm labeling as "partisans" are those who bash others with opposing views (or even views that are similar but not identical to their own) rather than having a conversation. Debate the idea, not the person; be charitable in your interpretation; etc.

Which is not to say that every space needs to be like this; disagreements are exhausting after all. But I think there need to be spaces where this kind of reasoned discussion is the norm if we're ever going to escape the tribalism in our society.

You're right in one sense: the people who disagree with me that communication and building bridges with people you disagree with is something to be valued... those people I'm pushing out, yes.

And again, because I don't think you're getting the point, I argue you're assessment of "communication and building bridges" and and "bashing rather than having a conversation" are fundamentally subjective. You routinely forgive passionate and edgy behavior by people who agree with you, where you view the same kind of debate from your enemies as "partisan". I don't need to find examples, I know this is true for you because it's true for everyone.

And that adds up. So, fine, you sincerely want a forum for dispassionate debate. But it doesn't work. You end up driving away the actually diverse viewpoints and your forum ends up an echo chamber. And it's worse than that: it's an echo chamber you think is telling you how the world works.

So you get forums like the letters.wiki site being discussed elsewhere, which is filled with sincere and high-minded discussion from minds drawn from (heh) across the spectrum from "center-left technocrat" to "right-leaning libertarian".

>You routinely forgive passionate and edgy behavior by people who agree with you

Yes, I am guilty of this at times. I would hope and expect to be called out for it in such spaces.

>I argue you're assessment of "communication and building bridges" and and "bashing rather than having a conversation" are fundamentally subjective

No, I disagree. If someone comes into a discussion space and dismisses someone else's points by simply calling them a (libtard|fascist|fraud), that's just a textbook ad hominem attack. This is objectively decidable - the person is not engaging with the contents of the other person's view, but is rather attacking the speaker themselves.

This is one example, but there are others: threats and other forms of verbal abuse, for example. They're pretty evident to anyone who's not emotionally involved in the conversation. I would like to keep all of this behavior out of such spaces, and I think it's possible to build a culture that discourages it.

I would ask you this: what's the alternative? Simply accept the vitriol between opposing sides of our political arguments and give up on any hope of connecting with people with significantly differing views? (In the US) we have a two-party political system, should we just accept the endless back-and-forth power struggle between the two sides? We all have a vote, and if we can't reach across the aisle to those we disagree with, how can we ever hope to make progress?