Put two people long enough in the same room and they'll find a reason to kill each other. It reminds me of that podcast about tribalism: https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-p...
It makes no lasting difference to the world if Team A wins against Team B in a sports event.
But public policy choices are absolutely fundamental to personal opportunity, personal safety, quality of life, and financial stability.
There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics. There's also a hierarchy of importance in policy, with some issues making far more of a difference to all of the above than others.
Misunderstanding policy cause and effect and picking and promoting the wrong answers will lead to objectively bad outcomes for at least some other people, and very probably for you personally.
The toxicity doesn't originate in social media. Social media simply amplifies the toxic effects of industries of dishonesty - from PR, astroturfing, and manipulated academic and media narratives, to calculated and deliberate hostile attempts to focus conversations on low-impact but high-emotion issues, and to split populations along tribal and narrative fault lines.
"I believe I have a moral responsibility not to wantonly slaughter my neighbors."
It's a short sentence, but the amount of waffling in it is amazing.
Even then, there is generally agreement that murder is wrong, and that murder means killing innocent people. The disagreement is generally over what constitutes "innocent" and "people". Similarly, pretty much everyone agrees that stealing is wrong, the differences are just in the details of what constitutes property and associated rights.
The problem comes when I act as if I am certain that my policy proposals are better than yours - and, worse, that you are therefore evil for proposing such flawed policies as you do. We assign to policies a certainty that they don't deserve.
"In reality no political program can be more than probably correct." - C. S. Lewis.
I would say it just amplifies human traits.
If "There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics." and "In politics the opinions actually matter." we're fucked because surely after 6 million years of evolution we shouldn't be where we are now. We're just fancy apes with a way to shitpost world wide instantly and it's not helping anyone.
You're right that political opinions matter but I don't believe they matter for the right reason. It's still a "us vs them" problem all the way to the top, just that that one is more complex and out of reach to the average joe. So instead of informing people we throw them 5 min clips of clickbait video here and there and ask them in which "team" they are every few years, after a while the teams are naturally swaped because "nothing changed", rinse and repeat.
And you’re my instant hero! Saved, favorited, bookmarked, etc.
That’s genetic evolution.
Memetic evolution? We’re just getting started.
A normal individual has very little effect on the outcome of sporting competitions, but an individual sports fan does get satisfaction from choosing a team to cheer for.
Likewise, a normal individual has very little effect on the outcome of major government policies (e.g. federal policies in the USA), but an individual voter does get satisfaction from associating with a particular political group, following their events, researching their arguments and rebuttals to opponents' arguments, etc.
It's true that major government policies actually are extremely important, but that doesn't mean that individual political participation has much of an influence on outcomes. It is very common for people to have a strong association with some political group and act similarly to sports fans (e.g. "my group is great, your group are a bunch of hateful cheaters"). It's not as common for people to spend effort and resources attempting to increase their actual influence on political outcomes (things like having constructive discussions, organizing events, campaigning, or even running for office), because people correctly realize that most of the time the effort and resources spent would be larger than the resulting effect on the outcome.
In politics, all sides are wrong about something big. And it isn't clear whose mistakes are bigger. More importantly, all parties promote narratives where we argue about inconsequential items to distract the public from bigger issues.
For example in the USA, Republicans argue against universal healthcare even though their own internal analyses show that, done right, we would save money and have better healthcare outcomes. Democrats argue for a level of micromanagement in regulation that creates bad outcomes for everyone. Republicans have politicized basic science and generally believe it to be propaganda. Democrats put political correctness above sanity. And so on and so forth.
But neither party wishes to discuss the fact that we have become a surveillance state, with an insane legal system, and a prison system that is one of the horrors of the world. They do not wish it discussed because party leaders have reasons to continue these policies, but according to polls a solid majority of Americans, across political parties, would prefer these policies discontinued. See, for example, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/15/key-takeawa... and https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-p... for evidence of that.
Therefore the fact that politics is about something that matters is an argument that team A vs team B rhetoric is itself actively destructive. The more important you believe the issues to be, the more that you should aim to depolarize the discussion.
I tend to think that sentiments like these are perfect arguments for a one-party authoritarian technocracy.
> policy cause and effect
Something that sounds so trivial yet notoriously difficult to establish.
What would be considered objectively right or wrong?
Usually not; policy goals are a matter of subjective preference. What policies maximize goals may be matters of objective fact, but most political debate is (sometimes under the surface of the rhetoric) disagreement about goals, not mechanisms.
2? Sure, nice and compact.
4? Hipster but OK I can handle it.
Tabs? Well you're probably the most technically correct even if I don't like it.
3? I'll cut you man. I can get along with most people, but everyone has limits.
That's a rather negative perspective. Sometimes they'll become inseparable friends to the very end.
In my course on the EU the instructor asked why the American colonies formed into a cohesive nation while the EU is still largely fragmented. Of course, there are a lot of answers to that, but I pointed out the colonies had to unite to stand against Britain. The EU hasn't had any external entity to unite against, thus the focus remains on the differences between the member states rather than the goals they share.