- its seems that rigid partisanship leaves little room for nuance. Driving an initiative through broad, general, typically profound, riveting statements rallies the troops and clearly differentiates the differences between "us" and "them." What is missing here is the realization that if we discuss items calmly, respectfully, and intellectually, we'll discover that more than one answer can be true. (I can list several examples). That would form agreement, which is totally unacceptable and would weaken our position. So, we continue to shout out talking points, squash descent, and mock alternative viewpoints.
- the most divisive, highly energetic, events where people were radicalized to the degree of destroying things (including each other) had some element of disinformation attached to them. The entire premise could based on information that isn't true. Or some elements are intentionally taken out of context, misinterpreted, or "dots" connected where there was no actual connection between them. Its doesn't have to be true, to get us fired up. It just has to compelling. We are beating the snot out of each other based on information that isn't true. The sad (disgusting) part is that the truth is obtainable (or lies dispelled) but, that could blow up the entire thing we are fired up about. Can't have that. Let's just continue to fight. (I can site several examples here, too)
