It is my belief that people who look an issue honestly realize that there are valid points on both sides.
This vapid statement says absolutely nothing. What constitutes a "valid point"? The intensity of belief? Logical consistency? Scientific proof?
Take a subject like abortion. I have no doubt that people in the christian right really believe it is murder. They obviously have the right to believe that. And not condoning murder might be seen as a valid point. But that doesn't justify restricting the freedom of people who believe the choice is the right of every individual woman. The validity of one's personal belief doesn't give him the right to compel others to adopt that belief themselves. No one is arguing that abortions should be mandatory, but on the one side, people are arguing that the practice should be outlawed entirely. The middle position, the right to individual choice, is considered extreme by one side.
With climate change, what are the "valid points on both sides"? At one time there were those who believed in manmade climate change and those who rejected it, claiming that it was a hoax, or that measurable warming trends were caused by other factors, such as solar cycles. Valid points on both sides? Eventually the data became too compelling to be rejected so one side had to shift a bit and say that while it was occurring, it was happening slowly and we could adapt and extra CO2 in the atmosphere was a plus. But subsequent measurements have shown that the rate of warming is increasing even faster
than predicted. Was this one of those valid points that we were compelled to consider when addressing climate change?
Now that fires are raging in Siberia, the Mediterranean, the Amazon, and the American west what idea will become the valid point to balance the call to limit the percentage of atmospheric CO2? Is allowing a few more tenths of a per cent increase to reduce the cost to industry a valid point?
An objective look at a complex issue doesn't tend to lead to the extremes.
That totally depends on the particular issue. In the covid pandemic, one extreme says vaccines aren't necessary, may be toxic, and shouldn't be used. The other side says we must vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible. An objective look, by those knowledgeable enough to do so – people familiar with the medical science, suggests that the first position allows the virus to replicate and mutate into more dangerous variations, and that the second position is the best was to protect public health.
When it comes to climate science, those who could look at the issue objectively were harassed, mocked as "alarmists", or ignored. Simply believing that the phenomenon was a real problem was seen as "extreme".
You can't take an absolute, one-sided view of an issue without ignoring real facts.
In some situations you can. If I discover that my house is on fire I'm not going debate the wisdom of leaving the structure or staying there. It's a one-sided issue based on my knowledge of real facts – I'm out the door.
Reality doesn't fit into simple ideological narraties.
Yeah, like your belief that people who look an issue honestly realize that there are valid points on both sides.
What used to be considered far left is now accepted as moderate, and what used to be considered moderate is now condemned as "far right".
Some of this is just the natural evolution of culture. Leftists didn't cause
many of the changes you mention and some people on the left have been slow to accept some of the examples you provided. The thing is that liberal people, once they detect a cultural change, are more likely to accept or even embrace that change as opposed to reactionaries. I'm not thrilled with the changes in grammar or the condemnation of revered literature. But this is just part of living in a society for 60 - 70 - 80 years. You see the change even if you didn't cause it. You may not like it but you live with it. The next generation grows up accepting it.