both pretty extreme

The far right’s definition of “people” is super limited. It doesn’t even include women.

I mean, that's just lies. That the 'Left' around here enjoys as an oversimplification, but doesn't help you understand other people at all.
There are some people who treat women as not people, but even the far right, as I understand it, are much broader than that, and less-far right certainly.
- The far anything is miserable, left and right.
  
  What counts as "far" is entirely relative. A few centuries ago, democracy and abolitionism were "far" left
  
  Clearly. Go back a thousand years and it makes no sense. We’re talking about today.
  
  Really? Your comment definitely doesn't make sense then
  
  Except the Far Side.
  
  This is correct. 😂 Great comic

The far right is, quite literally, removing the freedom for undesired people to do what they want. If a woman needs an abortion to survive an ectopic pregnancy or a trans person wants HRT, the far right says no.

There's lots of things going on, and the Far Right is certainly doing evils. But so, I think, is the Far Left. And Centre. And people and politicians of all sorts.
My point is about perception. If you pick and choose your naïvete (and your lies, misunderstandings and oversimplifications), you can make it look like this meme for either side, and then wonder at people (like the centrists in this meme) who go against an extreme. How then can you understand anyone except your own echo chamber?
Sadly it undercuts your point too, to anyone outside your group who might be learning from you: because if you call people stupid for things they actually don't mean, that turns them away from you.
- If you want to see far right evils, all you need is to look at the news. The comment you replied to contains a straightforward example. Could you tell us which evils the far left is committing right now?
  
  Are you off the opinion, then, that no evil is done by the Dems, or farther-left people and politicians? I'm not American, and I won't now compare to the countries I have lived in. But from what I hear, for starters the Dems are much accused of taking money from big companies to influence policy - and the blocking of Sanders for presidential bid was suggested to be that. The pharmaceutical industry, whilst nobly providing the world with COVID vaccines and many other great things, is not exactly known for its honest policies. People more specifically? I don't care to take the time to look at their lives, since I'm not part of your country and don't vote for them. Will you claim to me that Bernie does no wrong? That Biden has no hypocrisy? That latter I remember a couple of notable incidents.
  Yes the far right evil is plain and obvious these days. That will not mean the Left, or Centre, will do no wrong if in power. I think quite a small look at history will show that, but my experience is outside of America. Maybe the Dems in America are saintly and perfect? Loving and incorruptible? Putting their country first in every situation and caring for all people fairly, not letting money sway their interest? What lucky people you are, to have such a party! How strange, that so large a percentage of your countrymen could not see the perfection that shines in the Dems! How unnecessary, that every day I see on Lemmy pro-Dem propaganda that twists the truth and sensationalises the mundane; for with such a perfect party, you could stick plainly to the truth, and their goodness would shine out without problem.
  It must be nice in America to know you have a political side entirely without evil. For such a side I have not seen in the world.
  
  None of what you complained about is the far left, but rather the center/right of the Democratic party.
  To be clear, the far left doesn't have political representation in America, so you can't give actual examples because those would require the far left actually had power.
  But if you think Biden, a literal fucking segregationist, represents the far left, then you don't actually know what the left is.
  
  No, I realise that. Hard to give examples of American far left abusing power when they don't have any!

Far Right: You're free to be poor, because who cares

Yes, which can be seen as "you're free to be who you want" (and the rich are free to oppress you); Vs "you're not free; the government will organise your life" (and I'm sure that goes well...)
- The far right is the one not allowing people to be free to be who they want/are, inserting themselves into everyone's bedrooms, and justifying it all with fear based propaganda.
  What are you even talking about?
  
  How about the freedom to own a place to live without being taxed for existing? The freedom to employ people based on what you think best for the company rather than to fulfil a race/gender quota? The freedom to educate your children the way you think best? The freedom to protect your children from disease the way you think best? The freedom to protect your family from illicit CIA experimentation by being borderline-paranoid? The freedom to make and sell the food you want, and drive the car you want?
  Every one of these is restricted by government, and - if I'm not mistaken - traditionally more by Dems. Every one of these also has an upside to restricting! Mandatory vaccines. Standardised curriculums. Undoing oppression of blacks. Regulated food safety. But doing those upsides means restricting freedoms, and - as you might imagine - people disagree on the balance.
  If you don't understand the positive reasons why Republicans and others want their policies, then you lose the ability to help them see reason. You just sound smug and stuck in your political bigotry.
  
  You are mistaken, both on what is actually restricted and who is doing the restricting.
- This might sound controversial to you, but I don't want the rich being able to oppress people.
  (Historically, that went horribly. It's still going horribly, in fact.)
  I think you're being disingenuously generous with your interpretation of far right policies.
  
  It is controversial, I suppose. I also don't want the rich being able to oppress people, and generally stand with you on most left-style policies talked about here on Lemmy. But restricting the power of the rich comes with downsides, and the extreme versions of it haven't worked out well historically either.
  
  restricting the power of the rich comes with downsides
  Say, if I don't believe there's a good reason for a person's wealth to reach Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk levels, if I say that's not healthy for society, that we ought to implement heavier progressive tax and that people like him must pay it properly, can you explain what the downside would be?
  
  How would you implement it? Given time and breadth, I expect one could find downsides.
  But if it were really just that? Heavier progressive tax affecting the super-rich more, with enforcement on the rich to actually pay it? Sounds good to me.
  I was going to say it's not worth my time to think of downsides to that - but actually I can see two already. One is on principle, that wealth earned shouldn't be penalised. Especially when there is real communal wealth generated by e.g. Amazon. I've even wondered, at times, if this sort of taxation provides a band-aid for avoiding the real work of stopping the injustice that leads to the wealth imbalance in the first place (like wage theft etc.).
  The second is again how you implement it. I've seen a few fallacies in discussions of taxing the super-rich, around that complicated topic of what wealth really is when it includes company shares. You can shortcut that and say, well it's definitely worth taxing Musk et al and anyhow they'll have plenty of money left over - but if you do it slapdash like that, even if the effects don't spill over to the poor, it's still an injustice. And an injustice, even if hidden and apparently benign, is still a downside.
  But yeah, tax the rich :-D. Please do!

If only you had a brain, you might not have missed the point and construed it so far up your own ass it came out your mouth.

I agree with your take of the far left to a decent extent, but your take of the far right is dumb. They are actively “micromanaging” society by disallowing anything that doesn’t align with there “the way things were” ideals, and even then the way things were sucked for anyone who wasn’t a white Christian.

Is that so. It hasn't looked that way to me, from the news. More, it's looked like people getting paranoid that it's that way. But I typically only see big news from America, and not from many news sources. What I see more is Trump being a ridiculous bully, making a mess of relations both at home and abroad, and Musk doing the nerd equivalent, trying to solve government bureaucracy as if he knows everything and damaging everything in the process, not heeding anyone's caution. But not micromanaging society.
But if it is, I don't think that's what the Repb supporters see, and this sort of comparison is about how one picks and chooses certain aspects of the two sides to compare.
- How is restricting access to abortions, birth control and healthcare not micromanaging? How is abolishing gay marriage and trans rights compatible with "imma leave you alone to do your own things"?
  
  I don't think that is micromanaging at all. Abortion: federal level has fought for it to be ruled at state level. That's lifting restriction. State level: those states which have restricted it, are doing it on the idea of protecting the life of the foetus: that's restricting specifically what appears to them as killing another person. Birth control: not restricted, is it. Healthcare: removing or changing federal subsidised healthcare: that's not restricting or micromanaging! It's just removing a good thing! (Yes, I think national healthcare is good.) Abolishing gay marriage: hasn't happened. Trans rights: "you should use your identified gender bathroom" Vs "you should use your birth sex bathroom" is not one more micromanaging than the other.
  And, believe it or not, these are not the only things going on in America. Again, if you pick and choose, yes you can make an argument one particular way. Doesn't help you help anybody else though.
  
  Its only restrictive when the feds do it, okay.
  Abolishing gay right hasnt happened, but is something conservatives clamor for at every twist and turn. Conservative justices write opinions about how decisions regarding the accessibility of birth control should be limited, but i guess thats not restrictive either.
  And i am sorry, did you just pretend that the entirety of the conservative debate around trans rights is about bathrooms? No, they dont want trans people to exist. The feds just said "There are only two genders." How tf is that not interference?
- I mean no offense, but you are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing. Trump is micromanaging by picking and choosing who’s free speech and who’s rights he’s going to protect and fucking over anyone who doesn’t care to bend the new if it’s news stations collages or whole groups of people. idk if you have seen recently but he’s straight up sending people to prison labor camps without do process. Look all im saying is that sure maybe at one point the republicans were what you said they were but they have gone so far off course that they have lost any ability to claim they are granting freedoms to any groups other then the hateful and intolerant