The left is often described as being an anything goes sort of group, where the idea of being open-minded is an attribute. The right often paints the left as wimpy and preferring to avoid confrontation. From my perspective, this description is far from reality.
One of the problems that we Americans have which has contributed to the polarization of our society is a simple misunderstanding of what it means to be open-minded. To me, being open-minded means that I have a willingness to listen to an idea respectfully, think about it, and make up my own mind. It also means that I should offer the same courtesy and respect to others that I would like provided to me. To many of us, however, being open-minded means you have to agree with something or just refuse to think about it critically. To others it means that it's ok to reject things familiar in favor of things that are different or unusual to you.
For example, we on the left often try to be kind and helpful toward people of other nationalities, cultures, and religions. Our concern over the bombing of innocent people in Pakistan by drones, for example, is a good thing. We pity the poor Afghan farmer who lives in fear of his government and terrorists alike, who just wants to practice his Muslim faith and live in peace. We completely undermine this, however, when we turn around and demonize a poor rural white person living in Oklahoma that just wants to live according to his evangelical religion and have society mostly leave him alone. Sometimes it seems like we are too willing to turn a blind eye to our hypocrisy.
We should feel pity for all those in suffering or in need, whether we agree with them on everything or not. In reality, the poor Afghan farmer and the poor farmer from Oklahoma have a lot more in common than they are different. Both can be judged to be superstitious, ignorant, unreasonable, or many other negative things. At the end of the day though, both are human beings just trying to live their lives in a way that they believe is right. It is not our place to demonize or put them up on a pedestal.
The reason I write this is because I've become more active on this site lately than I have been for a while. Since this is a political site full of passionate people, it has never been a place of peace and calm. That's to be expected. What has changed, however, is how frequently people want to HR folks or call for banning of people who express ideas that they personally oppose. To be clear, there are some ideas that are clearly offensive and should result in these actions. It shouldn't happen every time someone brings up a controversial topic, though.
What I suggest for this site as well as our society is to try to understand those that you hate or at least disagree with. If you are a militant atheist, why not talk with and try to understand the concerns of an evangelical Christian? If you are a civil rights proponent, why not try to understand and consider the ways to deal with the concerns of racists? Why not start a dialog with a pro-life person to see how you can work together to reduce the need for abortions? Why not talk with a rural gun owner about their concerns and get their (non-NRA) input about how to prevent school shootings? Speaking with people, and most importantly listening to them, is not consenting to their ideas. Dialog does not indicate an assumption of agreement. In fact, having a discussion does not require the various parties to end up agreeing on anything. Progressives shouldn't feel required to agree with or act in such a way that pursues an agenda that goes against our principles. However, we owe it to our fellow human beings to understand their concerns and make sure that we pursue activism in a way that truly is representative of the greater good and based on a broad sense of understanding rather than a narrow, pure form of ignorance.