Yes they're divided already but not nearly as neatly as red/blue. Being that unnecessarily divisive (and I've been just as guilty as anyone) pushes people further apart, even people that agree on a lot more than they realise. On the flip side, when you agree with someone simplifying like that it just pulls your bubble tighter and tighter, you can lose perspective on how the other side really feels, which is usually much less extreme than the built up charicature.
I don't "agree" with it, I just find that style of communication clearly indicates their perspective, which I find useful. I try not to use labels like that on groups dogmatically, because I overlap agreements with almost everyone on something.
But, if we are talking about "one topic", as soon as you disagree with someone, you are now on different sides on "one topic". This article seems to be about "one topic", not a bunch, so I am not so sure it matters to much, because I have an opinion about that topic, so I am clearly on one side of it.
>...you can lose perspective on how the other side really feels..
I guess I just don't care to have "perspective" on how someone "feels" about kiddie porn, it's repulsive, sick and horrific. I don't need to empathise with them. Everyone has limits to their empathy, that's certainly one of mine.
I am just fine being divided on this topic.
I've found on both sides of an argument about a person's behavior (ie, depraved, evil, despicable, etc...) was ignored when the arguer discovered that person shared their "groups" view point.
I think (in my experience) it's extremely rare that people don't pick a side, and generalities do have uses in communication.
Unless you think only one side uses labels to create two sides? Where the other side is innocent of this behavior? (a silly question)