We would end up arguing about everything but the ostensible topic.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the liberal coding of vaccination during the pandemic, with the self-fulfilling prophecy that vaccine skepticism is for the other tribe of people who are bad.
You had people with preexisting conditions terrified of making a private medical decision because of the extreme political coding that both sides egged on to hysterical extremes.
This ideological faith clouds judgement, more realism is necessary to navigate these issues.
The belief that science, technology, and environmental policy can transcend partisan politics is necessary for western society to function.
If you step over that in your eagerness to apply postmodern analysis, you'll introduce even greater challenges than the ones we're already barely capable of addressing.
What is "liberal coding of vaccination"?
So what’s your answer?
My answer is only an appreciation for "realism" or "realpolitik" in these matters, that people should not delude themselves at the point when enemies distinguish themselves to you by pattern of action and behavior over time. But you should always work for cooperation where possible of course. "Make friends" (where you can).
I'm mostly responding the point that seems to imply political differences can always be overcome, that everyone is always willingly persuadable, and that science and tech or any institutions for that matter can exist in a vacuum outside of politics. People just don't notice or think about political conflict when they are operating amongst political allies or issues don't rise to level of existential disagreement.
And I’m asking you personally.
Doing it over peacetime class and partisan differences is deeply immoral and really stupid.