Article in the NYT looking at liberal vs conservative polarization

[Whateverist]

Nothing really new here but it is the problem that has turned American politics into a dysfunctional shit-fest.

When the loudest voices on the left talk about people on the right as either beyond the pale or dupes of their betters, it is with an air of barely concealed smugness. Right-wingers, for their part, increasingly respond with a churlish “Oh, yeah? Hold my beer,” and then double down on whatever politically incorrect sentiment brought on the disdain in the first place.

Regarding when did it start:

The explosion of the smugs-versus-trolls phase of our political discourse is traceable to a 2004 confrontation between Jon Stewart and the political commentator Tucker Carlson in the waning days of “Crossfire,” ..

Starts at about 43 seconds.






Regarding what is at the bottom of it:

Around the same time, a New York University psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, was formulating a theory about why liberals and conservatives have such a hard time productively conversing.

After mucking around in a lot of survey data, he came up with this basic idea: Liberals and people of the left underpin their politics with moral concerns about harm and fairness; they are driven by the imperative to help the vulnerable and see justice done. Conservatives and people of the right value these things as well but have several additional moral touchstones — loyalty, respect and sanctity. They value in-group solidarity, deference to authority, and the protection of purity in mind and body. To liberals, those sincerely held values can look a lot like, in Dr. Haidt’s words, “xenophobia, authoritarianism and Puritanism.” This asymmetry is the fountainhead of mutual incomprehension and disdain.

I especially liked the turn of phrase I bolded. 



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opini...rolls.html

[Foxaèr]

*grumbles*

Insufferable conservatives.

[chimp3]

That article is bullshit! It started with right wing talk radio. Rush Limbaugh is a bloated idiot!

[Minimalist]

It started with fucking Nixon and his "Moral Majority" bullshit.

The right has gone full retard.  You can't deal with full retard.

[Whateverist]

I wonder if there is any way to get this thing dialed down now? This country really is exceptional - ly dysfunctional and stupid sometimes.

[brewer]

*grumbles*

Insufferable conservatives.

Piss off.

I think it started in 87 when the Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced. Shortly followed by commentary being couched as news.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that what you're all saying..is that a man was shot, stabbed, then pushed over a cliff. 

[brewer]

I think that what you're all saying..is that a man was shot, stabbed, then pushed over a cliff. 

And went on to live miserably.

[rskovride]

*grumbles*

Insufferable conservatives.

Piss off.

I think it started in 87 when the Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced. Shortly followed by commentary being couched as news.

First time I've ever heard of such a thing, thanks.  Looks like it was scrapped completely in 2011.  Would have been nice to at least keep the part about presenting opposing views.

[RoadRunner79]

Piss off.

I think it started in 87 when the Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced. Shortly followed by commentary being couched as news.

First time I've ever heard of such a thing, thanks.  Looks like it was scrapped completely in 2011.  Would have been nice to at least keep the part about presenting opposing views.

I can see where it would be difficult to enforce... one can always behave dishonestly and not cover the opposing view well or accurately. But it still seems better to have it, then not. At least to remind them, that they should be covering things objectively, rather than selling something.

I wasn’t really familiar with this either.... so thanks Brewer