In the 21st century, opinions on many important sociopolitical topics are highly polarized.
This has some inevitable effects:
* After the views on a given topic become sufficiently polarized, both sides will honestly believe the other side is bigoted. US politics seems to be at this stage.
* Given enough separation of views, the moderates on both sides will be considered bigots by their
own extremists as well as the "opposition"
* It becomes difficult for moderates to distinguish between their own extremists and the opposition's extremists
Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia
I'm still waiting for something like the Horseshoe Theory that captures the effect of the moderates all leaving the discussion, and starting a different one. This does happen, and seems to be happening in the world now, on a fairly large scale.
Back on topic:
This discussion assumes, without question, that
there's only one "correct" side in the general case "one person believes another person is a bigot".
This definitely
isn't true all the time.
IMO, in the 2020's, it's
more likely to be false than true.
(note that "more likely" is functionally equivalent to "51% or more" - as a claim it cannot be disproven by low-frequency exception cases).
If both sides sincerely believe the other is bigoted, are they both right, or both wrong?
And during an ongoing discussion:
1. What should someone who
isn't heavily invested in the topic do?
2. What should someone who
is heavily invested, but knows they cannot change the other person's opinion, do?
There are simple answers to both questions. But the basic principles have been forgotten by modern societies as a whole, which makes them relatively difficult for Aspies to figure out on their own.
This isn't in wikipedia, but search on "Never wrestle with a pig ..."
Note that it's possible to "weaponize" that in
both directions.
Saying that you know it
during an argument is likely to cause an immediate "loss"