system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People shouldn’t get mad at or ridicule others for holding differing beliefs without at least trying to explain why those beliefs are wrong.

It is increasingly common in this day and age to have people with differing political beliefs attack each other for those beliefs just because they are different. This is not just a problem between the Democrats and Republicans, but its also becoming clearly visible in the progressive-moderate schism in the Democratic Party itself. 

In my opinion, this should not happen without at least an attempt to see the other side’s point of view and change it. Attacking them does the opposite, it alienates the other person from you and your base and only triggers an attack against you. I believe you can’t just baselessly attack someone without a coherent explanation as to why they should change the way they think. Otherwise you can’t complain about them not being able to see your side of the story.

Obviously I understand that some views are severely skewed and don’t deserve the light of day to be argued (ex. all Mexicans are rapists, a wall will stop immigration, the coronavirus is a hoax, climate change isn’t real, Bernie Sanders is a communist), but when it comes to genuine issues of concern, I think time should be taken to civilly argue them.
gpt
Where do we draw the line between "genuine issues of concern" and views that are "severely skewed and don't deserve the light of day to be argued"? Because this is entitlerly subjective but actually pretty important.

People can be genuinely concerned about views we think are ridiculous. Some people are actually genuinely concerned about Bernie Sanders being a communist, for example. But by this post, it seems like it's okay to attack and ridicule them.

And as silly as some views seem, this applies to every topic. For every single issue, there will be some people who are legitimate concerned about it and others who think it's a totally obvious foregone conclusion, not even worth debating.

So who decrees what's a genuine issue of concern and what's allowed to be mocked? You? Me? The president? There's not going to be one judgement everyone agrees on.

Either it's okay to attack and ridicule in all these cases or you should make an attempt to understand and change the opposing view in all these cases. (Or we say that each individual can choose whether they want to seriously argue or just ridicule a certain view.)