[siquick]

> Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing

We’re in such a “you’re either with us or against us” phase of politics that a discussion with the “other team” is difficult.

Combine that with people adopting political viewpoints as a big part of their personality and any disagreement is seen as a personal attack.

[busssard]

So there is this proof by Nobel Laureate Arrow, that polarization of democracy leads to dictatorship. So the most important thing we can do is to try to bridge the divide. https://telegra.ph/Arrows-theorem-and-why-polarisation-of-vi...

[baikamur]

Arrow tells us that no voting system is perfect. But he doesn't say that no system is good enough. Other results suggest that the right kind of method can reduce polarization.[1]

In addition, "dictatorship" is kind of a technical term: picking a voter at random and electing their favorite is a dictatorship in the technical sense, but not in the colloquial sense.

And it doesn't as much say "polarization leads to dictatorship" as "Condorcet cycles lead to dictatorship". If voters were somehow forbidden from creating majority cycles, then the Condorcet relation passes all of his criteria. In practice, Condorcet cycles are extremely rare, at least under current conditions.[2]

[1] https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10602-022-093... [2] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/papers/civs24/

[busssard]

thanks for the added context i had not heard about Condorcet, i will check it out

[smallmancontrov]

Bridge-building is easy to exploit. Sometimes punishing bad behavior is more important. Negotiating with a toddler will teach you this.

[squigz]

Yes, I acknowledged this in another comment.

The thing is, punishment cannot strictly be punitive - there must be an opportunity to learn and grow, otherwise nothing changes.

When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, sending them to jail for crimes, without providing counselling and other services to get their life back on track, where does that lead us?

When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, kicking them out of the family for shitty views, where does that lead us?

The trick, as I highlighted, is walking the line between these 2 things. Many people don't, and just jump to the punishment.

[pixl97]

So, the particular problem here is the internet and social media in general.

Make them go away and most of our political divide starts to disappear, with that said TV news is pretty crazily divided these days.

Simply put your idea does not work when there is huge amount of active propaganda with the entire purpose of causing confusion and division. "This video will make you angry" hits on the psychology of what's occurring. People don't spend most of their time communicating with 'the other side'. They spend most of the time attacking purpose built strawmen to solidify their convictions.

[squigz]

> Make them go away and most of our political divide starts to disappear

Even assuming this is true, the Internet is not going away, so I think I'll stick with my idea :)

[busssard]

as the other reply, you should still teach your toddler why they should not do certain things. That might be the bridge building. Not demonizing a person for their needs, but instead making sure that their strategy of getting their needs met is criticized and yes maybe punished. BUt still acknowledging their need in the process.

[goatlover]

And which side has been driving the majority of the polarization over the past several decades? It's right-wing billionaires and far right groups that don't care for liberal democracies. There's plenty of things to criticize the Democratic party in the US over, but at least they're not trying to reshape America into some form of Christian Nationalism or techno fascism.

[squigz]

Sure, but those are still part of what I'm talking about. Someone taking the "you're with us or against us" position? Call them out on it and tell them they're doing more harm than good to their cause. Someone taking a disagreement way too personally? Try to help them take a step back and get some perspective.

Of course, there's a lot more nuance than all that - sometimes, taking things personally is warranted. Sometimes, people really are against us. But, that shouldn't be the first thing people jump to when faced with someone who disagrees - or, more commonly, simply doesn't understand - where they're coming from.

And of course, if it turns out you can't help them understand your position, then you turn to the second part of what I said - accountability. Racist uncle won't learn? Stop inviting them to holidays. Unfortunately, people tend to jump to this step right away, without trying to make them understand why they might be wrong, and without trying to understand why they believe what they believe (they're probably just stupid and racist, right?) - and that's how you end up driving people more into their echo chamber, as you've given them more rational as to why the other side really is just "for us or against us"

(I'm not suggesting any of this is easy. I'm just saying it seems to play a part in contributing to the political climate.)

[esseph]

A lot of families have broken apart due to politics in the past decade in the US.

---

> A 2022 survey found that 11% of Americans reported ceasing relations with a family member due to political ideas.

> A more recent October 2024 poll by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) indicated a higher figure, with 21% of adults having become estranged from a family member, blocked them on social media, or skipped a family event due to disagreements on controversial topics.

[squigz]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is in telling me this? I mean... I'm literally advocating for that as a measured response to things?

I'll just say that "ceasing relations with a family member" is not "breaking a family apart"

(This is the sort of rhetoric usually used by those who were kicked out of the family; blame the politics for ripping their family apart and not their shitty beliefs)

[hereme888]

Totally agree. One thinks the other lacks critical thinking, the other thinks "they" have no common sense. And politicians and the media (both mainstream and social) have encouraged and exploit this for personal gain.

At the end we're left with people just saying things without having any knowledge of actual facts, because the sources of information lack the basic facts, purposefully reporting a biased and superficial version of reality.

[MangoToupe]

God forbid you think both teams should be ejected into the sun. Choosing between two shit sandwiches is going to lead to people being extremely polarized over wedge issues that don't materially impact most peoples' lives.

[smallmancontrov]

Refusing to play isn't a winning move, sorry.

[MangoToupe]

Evidently neither is playing

[squigz]

> God forbid you think both teams should be ejected into the sun.

What do you think this sort of attitude leads to?

[Nasrudith]

A magical utopia because everyone clearly truly believes in their exact same political beliefs but are temporarily deceived or intimidated by the status quo.

[MangoToupe]

> What do you think this sort of attitude leads to?

Progress, movement, change. Eventually, when the economic circumstances determine.

You can't force society to care about itself. It also doesn't make sense to sacrifice your own well being worrying over society.

[squigz]

> when the economic circumstances determine.

And how do you reckon that'll come about when society is more divided than ever and can't come to any sort of conclusions about how to fix the economic circumstances?

> You can't force society to care about itself.

"Society" isn't some abstract entity. It is made of humans. No, I can't "force" anyone to care about these things, but I can try to convince them of it.

It's more productive than this doomer narrative, at least.