We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:
- SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
- BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
- TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
- BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
- FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
- FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
- “CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
- “TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.
This week…impugning the motives of “the other” (frightening) was especially popular, as was name-calling (seducing). The short-hand “tribing” technique of damning-by-labelling was also in evidence, using such “neutral” labels as conservative…right wing…liberal…leftist…libtards (!) to smugly titillate the “in–the–know” base. And plenty of emotion-charged words like asinine, obliterate, doom, attack, dangerous, corruption, slash and targeting were used to flatter fellow insiders rather than advance the issue, thus widening rather than narrowing the conflict gap.
When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?
Here are this week’s most polarizing news articles, from the left and right:
Blue Headlines
Jimmy Carter Decides He Still Has Enough Life Left to Strike One More Blow Against America
Breitbart helps turns Nazi ideas into Republican policy, but it’s not the root of right-wing racism
Conservative Dream Come True: Judge Grants Rapist Joint Custody Of Victim’s Child
Children’s health insurance expired nearly two weeks ago, and the Republican Congress doesn’t care
Right-wing media’s new voter fraud “proof” is even more asinine than usual
Red Headlines
How Leftist Indoctrination Ruins a School System
‘Feminist Economics’ Finally Admits The Goal Is Replacing Families
With Its Latest Decree, the Trump Administration Dooms Women Nationwide
Planned Parenthood Is Targeting Baby Girls in the Womb
Obama Foundation: “House Of Cards” Corruption
Attacks on Christopher Columbus Are Part of Broader, Liberal ‘War’ on Western Civilization