system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Cmv: The vast majority of activists on the right or left are increbly closed minded and often vitriolic. These people are often not worth discussing with outside of getting a cursorary understanding of their views.

Just watched a vice story on students training to be pro life activists and it just reminded me of all the pushing of echo chambers and how rare it is to find people who genuinely want to step outside their comfort zone.

It honestly feels like whenever someone cares enough about a specific issue and wants action(or inaction) on it, they shut down all possibilities of being wrong and push as hard as they can whether their issue is worth pushing or not (to them).

Especially watching recent videos of activists from opposing sides basically fighting it out. The "discourse" and "arguments" between both sides are nonsensical at best and just pure emotion at worst.

I understand the need for and the effectiveness of protesting and activism as a means of enacting change, but I genuinely believe this has got to be one of the worse systems possible for finding the "best" thing to do in any given situation.

Assuming capitalism is good at optimizing markets and socialism is good at fairly distributing wealth; following this logic, there must be a WAY better system than elected representatives to enact "good government policy".

I guess to put it simply, my points are:

1. People are bad at knowing what's best for them or even what they want.

2. Regardless of whether they're "wrong or right" when they care enough to be an activist, usually they're just plain mean

3. There's gotta be a better system than what we have rn (elected representatives, activism, and voting) to figure out good solutions for our society. Cuz it seems like Noone *wants* to even talk to each other.
gpt
Your whole argument is vulnerable to fall to the "golden mean fallacy", in which you think that the solution to any problem is a synthesis of every side that is involved in the conflict. That every side has "valid points" and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  
That sounds reasonable and mature, but isn't as universal as you imply it to be.  

Take for example a historic issue that we surely agree on: Slavery.  
I think its fair to asume that we both think it is horrible and wrong. But 200 years ago in the US, would you have upheld your view from the OP in this one? "The anti-slavery folks are just too close minded and they aren't even open to the arguments the pro-slavery folks are making" is the same argument you make, but in such a clear context, it is obvious how it is flawed. There is no middle ground to be found here, the solution between "No slavery" and "Cattle Slavery" isn't "A form of slavery, but we will guarantee certain rights to slaves!", it is no slavery.  
Sometimes, one side is just plain right and the other side is plain wrong. Not every conflict is made up of a compromise waiting to be found, in many cases, one side is wrong and the other side is right.  
And surely you will now think that every side thinks they are the right one and the other side is clearly wrong and there is no compromise necessary and that is obviously a danger of acknowledging that right and wrong exists. But to pretend that every discussion has two valid sides is the other extreme and robs you of the ability to say "No, [thing] is wrong, actually".  
This leaves you with the inability to actively stand for anything other than compromise.