@crazybars Those mitts remind me of that America's Got Talent audition by Tape Face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7wbAbc9PFk
But I mean this isn't like a formal debate or anything. It's fine for people to pop in and express their opinion, even without evidence. Just like it's also for people to request "sauce?" when they sense something dubious.
Also, I don't think those are zero-effort posts. Zero-effort in my view is a copypasta of something that isn't really related at all to the discussion at hand, like "Trump won, get over it" or "Bernie where are your tax returns".
@firefish5000 said:
There are many things our country needs. But I believe that, above all other things, we need to be united. This is the one thing I can't see happening at present. Everything is black or white. There is no in-between, no shades of gray. Just pure hell.
So much this. The us vs. them mentality is strong these days. American politics has gotten really polarized lately...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/8k3z1i/this_is_not_normal_voting_patterns_of_every/
News and media also comes with its own fair share of biases and polarization. I am reminded of
this post comparing articles on the travel ban executive order (2017) from CNN, Fox, and BBC.
It's also a common thing that arguing against someone's viewpoints makes them feel like their core self is being attacked, and so they double down on their views in defense.
There are facts, and there are beliefs, and there are things you want so badly to believe that they become as facts to you.
I think this one of the main reasons why discussions on hot-button political topics like climate change, abortion, and guns can get toxic so quickly. Katharine Hayhoe
talked about this:
“If I just explain the facts, they’ll get it, right?” And the answer is, no. When it comes to politically polarised topics like climate change, that model completely falls apart. Arguing facts and data with people who disagree is far more likely to backfire, further entrenching their objections.
Why? Because such polarised topics have been internalised. They are not a matter of what people know in their heads, but rather who they believe themselves to be in their hearts. So arguing facts and data is not perceived to be an intellectual exercise, as we scientists perceive it, but rather a direct attack on their identity and their value as a person.
Someone in a YouTube comment said something that I wish more people would take to heart:
I don't remember now who said this, but I think this applies: You are not your opinions. Think of your opinions as things you carry around with you. You can drop opinions and pick up new ones and still be you. When you make your opinions part of your identity, it's easy to become offended when someone disagrees with you, especially if they make good points. I think that's often where the kind of exchange you describe comes from: people making their opinions part of how they envision themselves.