Stop it with the "both sides." Just stop. We're done with that after Trump's nonsense. There is a stark problem facing the US today, and you're trying to obfuscate it with bullshit talking points.
When one side doesn't do that, it's not a both sides issue.
The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process - the main point that I was trying to make. If we just blame everything on the "other" side, we will drift further apart, get less done, and become weaker as a country. I should also add that we are using simplified stereotypes of the sides here as there is a spectrum of positions and willingness to work together within either side.
It seems you are implying that only one of the major parties has proposed justice reforms. Do you have anything to back up that? I seem to remember both parties suggesting varying reforms. I also seem to remember one party rejecting the proposals of the other party just because they didn't go far enough - an all-or-nothing mindset rather than an iterative or collaborative approach. We could come together on the common ground and pass the lesser bill as a step in the right direction while continuing to investigate and debate the finer points involved with the further reaching bill.
That is great, but has a requirement: Both sides operating in good faith. That's just not happening now and hasn't happened in many years. We need to deal with that reality or keep suffering dire consequences, including a possible end of democracy.
I think we can go a level deeper than your prerequisite and say that we should be viewing the proposals of others in a charitable way and assume the best possible meaning - similar to the guideline on this site. Once a side assumes the other isn't acting in good faith (whether right or wrong), then it's already too late for democracy. I don't know what the fix would be, since people continue to vote for the representatives of both sides, and want the things either side fight for. So it seems it would require an undemocratic change, or a complete mindset shift within the population.
It can be hard, but it's not impossible. I am very familiar with your points and have made them myself, over long years, in other circumstances. This circumstance isn't one of them. If you aren't willing to draw that conclusion at some point, you are facilitating the worst in people, the bullying, the political violence and oppression; the division and hate; by giving them an infinite free pass, by eliminating any opposition. If you give the same answer every time, it's also not rational, intelligent analysis, but reflexive rhetoric.
And if you don't see it now, in the US (and many other places), you never will. You will never see stronger signals. People openly say they are out to destroy you at all costs.
It seems as if people were conditioned, over a generation of more 'reasonable' politics, to respond this way no matter what. It's obvious what your enemies will do, tactically, to take advantage of that. The world has shifted under your feet; it's like disruption in industry - things have changed, you need to adjust or the disrupters will destroy you.
Sometimes, hopefully as little as possible, but sometimes you have to fight.
You mention things like bullying, political violence, etc. Yet I see that sort of thing with both sides on a variety of issues. It's also important to note that in many cases the troublemakers are a very small minority and do not represent the true virtues of any movement. Yet we see the media portray the "other" side using those worst aspects rather than having a meaningful discussion.
"Only one side controls a major political party, has controlled the White House, has multiple people in Congress advocating for them."
I think we have different definitions of "side". Based on the root comment this was about conservative/liberals sides, and Republican/Democrat parties. Both of them have the things mentioned above.
"Only one side attacked Congress, and has large movements such as QAnon (which has major political figures, of one side, appealing to it and even joining it)."
We could say the other side has rioted and burned down cities via BLM protests that got out of hand, including antifa instigated violence. I think both statements are a stretch and are a great example of my prior comment around using a minority to represent the group.
"Very few on the other side advocate open violence, and there is hardly an organization to speak of."
Off the top of my head, there is antifa, which advocates for violence openly. There are representatives who support them. I remember eco-terrorist movements, but maybe those are no longer a concern. There have been plenty of liberals calling for or implying violence individually too, including representatives and presidents.
About the FBI comment, do you have any stats on the ideological background of the perpetrators? I didn't see the FBI compiling that. And sure, the the number of hate crimes has gone up in the past few years, but is fairly consistent with the '08 timeframe, so it's not necessarily a new phenomenon to see them around this level and they will likely fall again.
Your last comment didn't really add anything substantial for me. It was more along the same lines of the previous ones, where you tell me I'm wrong or following a false narrative, yet offer no evidence to illustrate that. I'm going to disengage at this point since I don't see any value coming out of this (facts I've asked for) and I'm a little tired of it being implied that I'm somehow stupid (for not seeing things, things that you also won't provide facts/data to support).