It probably has gotten a little out of control in the modern age. But there are reasons for that.

With that in mind... Whenever someone pushes the "Politically Correct" angle... I can't help but cringe.
"Politically Correct" was generally just a term invented by the conservative camp. - In short... They are acting all offended because they are having their ability to offend others shut down.
In short... People like that are generally being hypocritical.

As a centrist. I disagree. Both sides continue to push extreme views. - Which is standard operating procedure for both camps.

Well. Religious conservatives are right-wing by nature, which makes sense as these are the same individuals who cling to every word of their religious doctrine, doesn't matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim... Same story.
There are variations depending on geographical region of course.

Go ahead and say it, provided it is additive to the discussion.

Well arguing racism has become a political move and good way of silencing people. Many right leaning people are just quiet now because they don't wanna get pegged as racist. Fortunately, dems have played that card so much that's arguably losing strength. Dems also overplayed the "believe women" card when attacking Kavanaugh.

We could totally argue PC and being offended culture was a tool of conservative camps. The first thing that comes to mind is censorship in media around the 80s and 90s, much of that was spearheaded by conservatives of the time. Fast forward to now though, liberals are upset and offended by everything. Trying to censor and silence people is now what the left is all about. We see this happening on social media and dems are upset that Fox News even exist.

I don't see extreme views being pushed by the right. Meanwhile, the left is really leaning hard into socialism, seem to prefer disorder, dems don't seem to mind their mob supporters, etc. I'd argue the behavior of left is actually helping the right because its the left that's extreme.

Religions aren't equal and they don't create the same results. With that said, its no wonder why Islamic countries are less free than the west.

I understand it as small vs big gov.

As you go right, you want the gov as small as possible and as much capitalist freedom as possible. As soon as the gov disappears you have anarchy. Anarchy is far right.
As you go left, you want the gov as powerful as possible. As soon as the gov controls everything you have communism. Communism is far left. You can't run a communist state without a big gov.

Hitler was a totalitarian leader, meaning that he wanted every aspect of life under his/his party authority.

The thing is, it's very hard to be a tyrant with totalitarian rule without a big gov behind you. For example, North Korea has a totalitarian leader because he has a communist gov that controls everything. The same for China under Mao. The same with the recent example: Venezuela. They couldn't have a totalitarian rule there before turning the country into a communist state. That's what they did.

Communism needs big gov, and big gov needs power centralisation, power centralisation creates a tyrant. This is what has been happening since the French Revolution. The French got rid of the King and tried to control everything to create a new progressive society, anti-monarchist. It created Napoleon. He made himself Emperor (they got rid of the King to get an Emperor) and went out of control.

I understand that the only way Hitler could become a tyrant was through big gov. He had to make the army and the influence over the markets controlled by his party, the National Socialist party. It was essentially communist, even though not internationally communist like the Russians.

I've never seen a society moving towards small gov and big capitalism getting a tyrant as a result. But I always see countries moving towards big gov, socialism and communism and ending up with a tyrant like Hitler.

Whatever he was in his mind, far-right or far-left, he was a big gov ruler. I don't see much difference between him and any other communist ruler.

I honestly don't see that happening.

The right-leaning people seem as vocal as ever and still constantly complain about everything.
And the left are still constantly shifting blame to everyone else.

Both sides are as bad as each other. The poop flinging is honestly getting droll at this point.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Socialist ideas have always been a bread-and-butter motive of the left.
Socialism in moderation isn't a bad thing either... Countries with the best standards of living (Better than the USA) leverage Socialism to a degree to achieve that.

Both sides are as extreme as each other, it's extremely disingenuous whenever someone paints one side of the fence as the bad guy or more extreme than the other, best place to be is in the center, you can see both positions, you should join us.

I am of the opinion all Religion should be abolished as none can prove their assertions to be factual.
But if you wish to talk about freedom... It was only because of secularism that freedom became a more prominent thing... Not because of any particular religion, the west is no exception.

I mean.
Divorce? That's Anti-Religion.
Same-sex marriage. - Yep. Religion hates that too.
Women not being obligated to serve man. - Yup. Religions don't like that either.

I could go on... But you get my point.

Well watch left wing news outlets and just see how often they inject racism into everything.

The right is complaining about everything? Well the left is quite destructive to the country... but the left is certainly the loudest and has mobs.

Right now, I see the left as the greater evil by trying to silence people and genuinely opposing the freedom of speech.

Extreme views aren't being pushed by the mainstream right. Can't say that about the mainstream left.

Socialism is a very bad thing, socialist policies are another story and less destructive. Bear in mind, countries that have balanced heavy socialist policies still don't want to be called socialist. Maybe because Europe has actually seen that's bad form of government. Meanwhile, people don't want to call Venezuela socialist because it failed.

I'm not a religious person. But I don't want to control people from practicing it or even discourage it. That's the job of shitty countries.

They do not want to be called socialist countries because they aren't. They are social democracies, the GDR and other Eastern European countries during the Cold War are usually called socialist countries.

I watched many US political discussions in the last few months and normally this happens. Someone brings up social policies like universal healthcare and immediately someone from the right or a ultra libaral springs up and says something like "that's socialist, do you want this country to end like Venezuela?!" 

instead of looking at examples where those policies are implemented successfully (which btw are plenty). They try to shut down the discussion by demonising these social policies.

Yeah, that is accurate. National socialism was its own thing, despite its name.

I think its hard to imagine these universal healthcare working in the US simply because the inefficiency in this country and people aren't that open to high taxes. Generally speaking, its a safe bet the "free" government option wouldn't be as good as the private option because it doesn't have to be and limited funding. This is often why private options exist even when there is universal healthcare.

Essentially there is an attitude on the left if something isn't quite right then it needs more money. I genuinely feel more people would be open to giving the government more control if it just wasn't so bad at virtually everything it touches. I often ask left wingers name something they genuinely feel the government does well, they don't have answers but still have faith in the government for some reason.

Isn't that kind of a false dichotomy, though - that because the government doesn't do something well, that automatically means the private sector will do a better job of it? Because I can point to plenty of instances of, just to name one example, governments selling off unprofitable railway lines to private companies, only for said companies to do an even worse job of running them, forcing the government to take the line(s) back into public ownership.

The government's job is it to protect its citizens. Private companies' job is it to make money and screw over as many of those citizens as possible. I don't care how well the government does it, they're the only ones that WILL do something. Private entities are so bad at being beneficial for the general citizen that laws have to be made to PROTECT people FROM them and their schemes. It is completely irrelevant how well the government handles money since they are the only ones anyway that give at least two shits about people's well being. Instead of taking power away from it, we should find ways to improve things and not take the power away and give it to people who're even less trustworthy.

Fun fact: Private companies are the main reason why the government is so terrible at its job.