As Trump rose to the presidency, one explanation that swept political science was the power of polarization, specifically a phenomenon known as affective polarization, but a keen group of scholars now suggests that this approach is inadequate.
It would be hard to describe the state of political competition in America more accurately than as âa poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion and moralizationâ â the subtitle of an article, âPolitical Sectarianism in America,â published by 15 important scholars in Science magazine in November 2020, including Eli Finkel, Peter Ditto, Shanto Iyengar, Lilliana Mason, Brendan Nyhan and Linda Skitka.
The Science essay argues that
The political sectarianism of the public incentivizes politicians to adopt antidemocratic tactics when pursuing electoral or political victories. A recent experiment shows that, today, a majority-party candidate in most U.S. House districts â Democrat or Republican â could get elected despite openly violating democratic principles like electoral fairness, checks and balances, or civil liberties. Votersâ decisions to support such a candidate may seem sensible if they believe the harm to democracy from any such decision is small while the consequences of having the vile opposition win the election are catastrophic.
The costs, the authors argue, are substantial:
Sectarianism stimulates activism, but also a willingness to inflict collateral damage in pursuit of political goals and to view co-partisans who compromise as apostates.
Yphtach Lelkes, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, has his own description of the state of American politics:
Affective polarization is the canary in the coal mine. That is, it tells us things are dysfunctional without causing the dysfunction. Affective polarization as an indicator of dysfunction rather than a cause doesnât diminish its importance, I think.
Top executives are departing amidst reports of racial and sexual harassment.
Controversy has struck the Southern Poverty Law Center, the
formidable progressive law firm best known for tracking hate groups in
the U.S. Co-founder Morris Dees, President Richard Cohen, and other top
executives are exiting the organization amidst a staff uprising over
alleged sexual and racial harassment in the work place.
The leadership shakeup, fueled by allegations that black staffers were shut out of key positions and that Dees personally harassed female staffers, has brought the SPLC considerable media scrutiny, and it's about time. Regardless of whether these specific accusations have merit, the SPLC should face a reckoning over its extremely shoddy work, which has mistakenly promoted the idea that fringe hate groups are a rising threat.
An awful lot of people here? A bit of a hyperbole, n'est pas? Oh, and a nice ad lib too. I like the "personal touch."
Les mots que vous cherchez sont "ad hominem", je pense.
And no I don't think so, but I'll leave a perusing of the forum as an exercise to the reader. And regular posters here (and you're as regular a poster as we have) drip hatred, just generally not directed at protected classes.
The FBI is only relevant for its similarity. Similarity doesn't require something to be identical (in purpose). Vilification (even within the bounds of legality) is sufficient for the SPLC. Not for the FBI: "Hate itself is not a crimeâand the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
I'm quite grateful the SPLC could only directly damage my reputation (and indirectly put me at risk for one of their fans to decide I'm fair game) and not put me in prison. I'm rather fond of the freedom of speech and civil liberties. That used to be a priority at SPLC as well.
If opposing a policy goal of some group is vilification then anyone who has an opinion is guilty; opposing gay marriage was enough to get a group on their list. Well, a group that couldn't effectively fight back anyway. They didn't list, say, the LDS church.
I don't think any pragmatic organization is interested in being sued into oblivion, regardless of principles.
Half a gigabuck in the bank means they aren't going to be sued anywhere near oblivion even if they lost, and defamation suits by people deemed public figures are notoriously hard to prove. They are, after all, pretty successful lawyers.
Good enough lawyers that they didn't want to subject themselves to the discovery process and what it might reveal about them. After caving on the Nawaz case they quietly scrapped their entire Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists project.
