[spencerflem]

I appreciate your response and agree with it, but don’t quite get the emphasis on polarization. They don’t want two polarized media sources, they want one completely controlled propaganda source. And I don’t see how it’s playing into their hands or something being “polarized” against billionaires and trump supporters.

[onepremise]

Yarvin and Srinivasan have been described as favoring deliberate polarization to destabilizing established narratives. The intent is to surface competing extremes. They view polarizing media as a way of delegitimizing our current framework of government. Yarvin specifically proposes the deconstruction, even abolition, of current democratic institutions, replacing them with a CEO-led or monarchist. Their intent is to accelerate the cycle of systemic breakdown and renewal, so their version of autocracy can emerge in the vacuum.

[spencerflem]

Oh totally, again 100% with you that they are intentionally (and sadly it seems, successfully) breaking down democracy in the US and elsewhere.

I also believe that there is astroturfing in online comment sections and occasionally embedded agents in opposition movements to push extreme and hostile "wedge" views that would split otherwise potential allies.

But a lot of it is natural resistance to being attacked- Am I "polarized" against Trump and Trump voters because of a deliberate campaign, or because they are working to make my life unlivable, y'know? That sort of polarization I don't really have a problem with.