I am sorry but my disdain for social conservatives (and by that I mean the homophobic, racist, creationist right) is not dictated by neoliberal arrogance or bias but by empirical evidence — they put Trump in the WH, after all. He is a symptom more than a problem.
There is no such thing as a moral equivalency between them and even your worst-nightmare-liberal snob, just like there was no moral equivalency between Hitler’s ideas and those of his opponents. Their values and beliefs are dangerous because they are not grounded in reality but in an alternative, fictional narrative that is born out of fear and out of their inability to cope with what Heraclitus called the panta rei.
Mine is not a judgment on them per se. It doesn’t matter that I don’t personally agree with or share their beliefs. But it does matter that a group of very wealthy individuals is using technology (Mueller should really look into Cambridge Analytica) to manipulate them as a group. That’s why I advocated political neutering.
As for the “moderate” conservatives — the ones who simply want to live according to their principles (it’s a free Country) without shoving them down the throat or up the uterus of everyone else — they have become the enablers of extremism, just like moderate Muslims have become the enablers of pseudo-religious violence. Neither group is nearly as vocal as it should be in ostracizing the virulent strands among them. This is not a new phenomenon; it happens every time a groups starts feeling marginalized.
So yes, dialogue would be wonderful. But how can we make it happen, especially if Net Neutrality protections are rolled back?
That, I think, is the billion dollar question — pun intended.