Again, what purpose does it serve to make them enemies? Certainly doesn't make them more likely to change view, or make either of you any happier. It might get them more involved in the issue. And can bring attention to their ideologies.

It's best not to associate with those types of people, I surely would count people promoting that as enemies, why would I want to be neutral to those issues?

Because irrationality thrives from opposition and conflict! When there is nothing else at play, it's always best to make it as hard as possible to make yourself identified as a clear opponent.

Non of them. I dont like the right because they dont want any new people. I dont like the left becauye they want everyone comming in. I dont like the Establishment because they are just puppets for lobbies. I dont like the progressives because their only problem is where the trans people can poop. There is not a single party i like world wide. We need a Middle party. Completely in the MIDDLE!

But unless you have no views at all, conflict and opposition is inevitably going to arise when you are trying to promote views that are different from others. Unless I decide to side with their views or stay out of the topic altogether, of course. However, as I view their ideals as dangerous, it would logically follow that people that promote dangerous ideology would be dangerous.

If they're wrong, say it. Discuss how much they're wrong, as much as you deem necessary, or useful. If you think the conclusions they make can be dangerous, you can express that. But attack the individual ideas, not the group of people. 

Discussion is advancing much, is it? haha! I guess we'll just be in disagreement here, then.

I have come to the conclusion that discussion is almost meaningless, since when I try to give statistics, evidence, etc. it has no effect. How are you expected to have a rational conversation with people like that? Also, even if I attack just the ideas, people identify themselves through their ideas so they can still view it as an attack on themselves.

Seems like you're describing people in the far right and far left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ws_APXilE

Jokes aside, I identify as a libertarian socialist, an anarchist of some kind. Not sure I could get any more specific than that, aside maybe saying I believe I'd tend to favor a more collectivist view rather than individualistic. That being said, I think most of the differences between denominations are rooted in "how to get there", and I see no point, at least not as of yet, given the circunstancies around me, to identify as any of them. Some of that is probably rooted in a lack of knowlodge on the distinctions, tho. I do believe getting rid of the state while capitalism is still going, without replacing said state with effective means of direct control over the economy, would be a pretty bad idea, and I'd expect a even worse de-facto-state to arise. I also doubt state socialism, unless the definition of "state" is streched quite a bit from what we have today and (at least most of) the productive forces are in (at least mostly) direct control of the people, would ever be conductive to much freedom.

Btw, I think an option for "I'm not really too sure" would have been nice : p