I think a distinction can be drawn between bringing up on HN the ability of an issue to become not just divisive but divisive along political lines, and the issue actually becoming divisive in society at large. Here we can discuss if it could be a political issue, what that would mean, what could be done about it, etc. That seems quite different that a discussion (on HN or elsewhere) wherein it has become a political issue.

Maybe we should stop pretending we all start in the middle and then get pulled to the extremes as we are exposed to either (un)biasing information. Maybe we should assume that all wells have already been poisoned (just a saying not a value judgement), science or religion, figure out which team already claimed you and defend your tribe.

Okay, well my tribe is the tribe of people who aren't in a tribe. We all get along with each other just fine but boy do we hate those other guys.

I made a falsifiable prediction about reality. If I'd written an essay on Medium that ostensibly argued for one side's view, but which did so in a condescending and divisive manner more likely to show what a clever guy I am than to actually persuade anyone on the other side, then I would've become what I hate.

But you did take one side's view in a condescending and divisive manner. The side you took is the one that divides people into a Red Tribe and a Blue Tribe, ascribes stereotypical views to each, and makes lists of attributes to categorize people into one of these two tribes.

People are quite a bit more complex than that, and these kinds of arbitrary binary divisions get in the way of finding common ground.

It's a bit of a strange prediction. If we take boxing as a model of a formerly massively-popular sport now considered excessively dangerous, we can observe that minority (Latino and African-American) participation remains high. These demographics are generally not considered part of the Red Tribe coalition. If football follows the same trend, it will be a weak tribal correlate at best.

Not trying to argue, but just curious: was boxing as big as football is now in the US? I'm not much into sports in general, and I wasn't around when boxing was big (or just completely missed it), so I'm lacking context.

Boxing was the football of the 1920s, with saturation radio and newspaper coverage, and became the top sport of the early broadcast TV era. It has been declared dead or dying at regular intervals despite being a solid performer into the pay-per-view era. Like football, it would probably be somewhat safer if its "protective" gear was reduced or redesigned.