Bingo, 

Find questions that the right would congregate on that the centre left, liberals and leftists would having varying opinions on.

Actually they would have more varying viewpoints than the left on this one. As has been mentioned before, if you have one side that's just correct than the one that has some people that are wrong has more varying viewpoints. In this case the question would be something like: "Do you agree that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?" And the left would almost entirely strongly agree while the right would have a variety of viewpoints on the matter. 

From my experience, people on the right seem more likely to be single issue voters. Like you have your pro-gun people who care primarily about that one issue and may not have strong views about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, etc. and vice versa. This leads to a hodge podge of views.

Whereas on the left there seems to be a more uniform ideology revolving around empathy & equality. Things like expanding healthcare, education, labor rights, LGBT rights, drug reform, etc. all fit into a cohesive idea of lifting up the working class, those in need & marginalized groups.

In my view, the right is a coalition of groups who have their own specific grievance while the left is a coalition of groups trying to create equality.

One big problem is that you're imagining a singular cult. This is generally true if you're comparing the few hundred people in a cult, and comparing them with everyone else in the world. But right vs left are extremely broad groups of people. Even if a lot of people are in cults, there's not going to be A SINGULAR left wing cult or A SINGULAR right wing cult.

If you had two cults on one side, and 1 cult on the other side, you'd see that there's more diversity of thought on the side with the 2 - but neither one is less cultish than the other. 

Silly earth shape example, if you had a bunch of sub groups where people thought the Earth was flat, actually a cube, infinite plane - you'd see a lot more diversity of thought in the cults, compared to the rest of the world who generally believes the Earth is relatively spherical.  

That also translates to people commonly not compromising on human rights and healthcare on the left, while on the right there are different ideas on whether its ok to not be able to afford healthcare, if measles vaccines should be taken, if you should earn a livable wage from one full time job, etc.

Yeah, the left I feel like agrees on broad issues while having differing opinions on specific details or ways to implement things.

For example, I’d say pretty much all people on the left agree with expanding healthcare but there are arguments over specifics. Should it be a single-payer system? A public option? Incremental expansion of existing programs?

I'm very sorry, but I find this to be a poor argument.

What in the world even works this way, where you can just outright write something off, because it's rare? 

Shark Attacks are far rarer, but no one would ever say "Sharks don't exist", "Sharks never attack people".

In a lot of situations, the exceptions are the interesting things. There are lots of people studying gravity, because the current theory of Gravity only works 99% of the time, and that missing 1% is interesting.  

Politically, we should have systems that don't blatantly discriminate against people at all. If someone tried passing a law that said "punch everyone named Miriam", pointing out that Miriam is a rare name, and only 0.034% of people are named that, isn't a defense. 

If there's some kind of good reason to not work to have better definitions in science or not work to be more inclusive in politics, then I can understand that.

Like sometimes it's not even really possible to have a good definition for something. If you want to define the smallest river or whether something is a mountain or a hill or something. When you look into some of these things, they are often actually very undefined or much more weirdly defined than you might actually think.  

And sometimes even well intentioned policy ideas end up hurting more people than they help.

I can completely understand goofy situations like that. 

But I would argue that it's not the case here. 

For an example here, transphobia even hurts cisgender people. Because there are a lot of women who happen to have more masculine attributed features like a strong jawline, and there are instances they get harassed because someone assumed that they were trans, even though they aren't. 

Admittedly I've only skimmed through the important parts of the study, but based on that, I think this seems like a really poor thing to pick out from the study - possibly even because this might not have been a focus of the study, but also because important context was left out (excerpt from the discussion section):

"It is possible that holding extreme (and thus unnegotiable) attitudes on important social-political issues has become increasingly identity defining for Democrats, not least in response to Donald Trump's controversial presidency. The pattern does not imply that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats, nor that Republicans could deal better with attitudinal uncertainty. It does imply, however, that –at this particular moment in time– Democrats and Republicans are constructing and managing their partisan identities differently in relation to the topics reflected in these questionnaire items. Research suggests that social category membership (e.g., being White, Christian) is more important for the construction of Republican identity than it is for Democrat identity (Mason & Wronski, 2018). Fulfilling such normative criteria may hence qualify someone as a valid group member even if that same person may hold somewhat liberal views on, for example, gay marriage."

I feel like having this context from the start would have greatly benefitted discussion, which seems mostly of quite low quality to me at the moment. Research in general should, in my opinion, be cited and drawn conclusions from only very carefully, because it's incredibly easy to draw the wrong conclusions and focus on the wrong things if you're not an expert on the subject.

Its about the rule, not the exeption.

Like the Nintendo Switch(since we are on a gaming site) One of the defining features of the Switch is that you can play your games on the go.

Now you can argure that thats NOT a defining feature of the Switch because some Switches doesnt work. The battery has died, the screen is crushed, you dropped it in the ocean or it broke in half.  So you cant call the Switch a portable console since some cant do that.

Thats silly. Some Switches may have a defect, but it IS what the system is supposed to do.

Your are just arguing semantics because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion. You just want to be right at all costs.

It's not even remotely a good analogy. 

You're actually the one in this scenario insisting that the Switch must be portable because all the other ones are. In this scenario I'm recognizing that some of them might not be. 

It's pretty messed up in the first place to suggest that someone is defective. 

No I don't care about being right at all.  I want people to stop being crappy to each other, because "it doesn't make sense to me".