[hibernator149]

I found that it is really hard to go against the mainstream of the bubble you live in for two reasons: Let's take issue X as an example. One side says X is always true, the other that it is always false. But you think that actually "it depends". The two problems are then:

(1) When you don't fully agree with your bubble on X, the more extreme ones will assign you to the opposite bubble and shun you.

(2) There are people in the opposite bubble that will pretend to believe X "depends" in order to lure less extreme members over to their own bubble. And many in your bubble will believe that you are one of those.

We are so caught up in our tribal thinking that many will simply not believe that you genuinely think "it depends".

I believe that this is "by design", that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Many will agree with me here, and then they will finish with "but the other side is too brainwashed to notice"... Knowing that it is a trap, does not help you to avoid it ;)

[preommr]

> that someone is dividing and conquering the public.

Yea that someone is society.

Tribalism happens because the feverent supporters are the ones that actually give money, time, etc. Someone that sees the nuance, is more likely to be okay with either solution, or said another way, not likely to give money to one side because they don't want to fully endorse one side.

The people supported then go on to be politicans and media personalities that then force people to pick sides because it's more advantegous to them.

It's an oversimplification, and not always applicable but a decent enough explanation for lots of our problems.

[Spivak]

I think there's a "the world is entirely grey" presumption here that prevents the full analysis. You're not treating "it depends" as the fully-fledged position that it is. If you did you would see that there are now three positions the originals X, Y, and a new one Z that are incompatible. They can't all be right. X and Y have lots of supporters, why do you presume your new position Z to be correct simply because it lies on one of many possible lines to draw between X and Y?

Surely for any real world issue the positions X and Y were the result of someone else's seeing the nuance but landed in a different place than you did.