It's pretty ironic that an article that decries the rise of polarization, using the term "polarization" 18 separate times, ends up being basically just a checklist of one-sided ideological complaints about the other side.
After reading this book review on Haidt's Righetous Mind (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-r...), I've been wondering if I falsely gave him credence for channeling a neutral voice. This article pushes me further in that direction.
polarization noun [1]
: division into two sharply distinct opposites
especially : a state in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes
political polarization
… the relationship between partisan polarization and legislative gridlock is direct, with stalemate more frequent as the political center shrinks.
— Sarah A. Binder
The drift in our society now is not toward a grouping around the middle, but toward polarization.
— Richard Todd
… the venue where our most fractious … arguments over identity occur: the internet. These arguments do not play out on a democratized playing field where all identities are weighted equally; rather, they play out in a meticulously crafted environment where identities are microtargeted and polarization is amplified by algorithms.
— Emma Levy
> Why would it be ironic to use a word describing the thing you're talking about a lot?
Their position seems to be that polarization (in the sense of the sides being pushed to extremes) is a bad thing, they claim that has happened, and yet they are extremely one-sided.
