Now I don't know if I'm in a bubble, because when I leave the internet and talk to actual lefties in person we always find a common ground. Hell, I have a friend group containing both anarcho communists and globalist one-world government types.

For a long time now, the social media have been embraced by 'progressives'. I see them destroying themselves.

Trump's 'surprise' election in 2016 fits in this : people don't voice their moderate opinion anymore, they vote however they want though.

Do you have a link?

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/15/differences-...

"6 people" seems to be an exaggeration, but most tweets are generated by a minority of Twitter users. And Twitter users themselves tend to be more political than the general population. So what you see on Twitter is representative of the more hardcore partisans, not the mainstream.

> > > The left (at least, the internet left) do this here in the UK too. Twitter seems to think all Tory voters are rich white men who want the poor to suffer.

On a similar note, most conservatives that I talk to think that everyone on the left is a social justice warrior who wants white men to suffer. I suspect a big part of the problem is that our views of the other side are based on the most extreme people from that side. This is certainly the view that'll be formed if one tries to "get a balance of views from both sides on social media" (you can't get a balanced view if you're only seeing extremists from both sides).

The recent vote on school meals certainly didn't help that image

Well, this is literally true if you consider non-human lives. The danger I see is then not listening to and interacting with these non-vegans to develop a more nuanced perspective of the people on "the other side" who may not be very different after all. Stating a legitimate political or moral view alone is not (itself) what induces polarization, as I see it.

Calling the other side "murderers" goes beyond "stating a legitimate political or moral view". You're accusing the other side of being criminals of the worst kind, so of course it's going to be polarizing.

Can you explain your reasoning for this?

More specifically, if one only considers certain types of X to qualify as X, does calling someone X if they perform an action not universally considered to be X go beyond "a legitimate political or moral view?"

If you want redefine language, that is fine, but in real life I will not accept being called a murderer.

1984 was not a manual.

What do you mean by not accepting it? You're welcome to disagree with the classification, of course. That's how we start a hearty discussion on values, morals, politics, etc.

In real life, I would also hope that I use a more tactful strategy that doesn't immediately fall back on a term that will polarize my interlocutor.

I will make sure you will never call me a criminal of the worst kind ever again. In my experience, not very much is needed.

You hit the nail on the head. USSR's failure and realization that they only survived as long as they did because they stole everything from the G8 countries and had slave labour of gulags.

Add in China's 'special economic zones' which is basically China implementing capitalism in a safe way. This implementation of capitalism has enabled them to greatly boost their economy. Unfortunately causing hyper globalization.

Communism demise has lead to them been rebranded countless times now. Fundamentally the collapse of communism worldwide has created lots of frustration. Which is a feeling that's built in to the animal kingdom. The unfortunate reality of this frustration is that almost certainly will result in violence.

What would be a good source for this?

I'm not sure what a good source would be. Maybe there is none.

Second, they may be right. Which groups with 'different opinions' are you talking about? Geert Wilders has been convicted for libel against ethnic minorities. And Baudet has said that he wants Europe to be mostly white [1].

Third, now overgeneralizing myself, the 'right' does the same thing too: calling people on the left 'profiteers', crazy and lazy hippies who wanto to avoid any labor, etc. In fact, you are blaming the political left in your post right now for the murder of Pim Fortuyn, based on vague and unsubstantiated claims. You are doing the same thing you blame the left for.

And lastly, the original ideals from the left are very much needed in this neoliberal climate where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The economic divide is growing. Even the VVD is moving towards the left, seeing that the capitalist race has gone too far. One example: the Netherlands has a very serious housing crisis right now caused by neoliberalism. From the credit crisis to selling and reducing out the social housing stock, investors only wanting to build high end apartments, etc. In the last debate about it, the VVD was advocating for a bigger role in housing, that ideal is tradionally associated with the left.

So please, don't polarize, overgeneralize and blame the whole left for murder and name-calling. Using your line of reasoning again, it is not like the 'right' is in a good place right now with their corona denial and Qanon conspiracies.

[1] https://www.ad.nl/politiek/baudet-verliest-zaak-tegen-buiten...

I don't think so.

Besides, you only have to check geenstijl.nl (https://www.geenstijl.nl/5155500/et-tu-francisco/#comments) for worse: the left are terrorism enablers, etc.

I can't link directly but I quote: "Moslims zijn beter te vergelijken met linkse activisten, andere meningen worden niet getolereerd en desnoods met geweld onderdrukt."

(Translation: You can compare muslim with leftist activists, other opinions are not tolerated and are repressed, with violence if needed).

So your point that the left is somehow worse at demonizing is invalid. People of both sides do it, and both are wrong.

So I hope you can focus on policy instead, because the statement that one party is worse at name calling is biased and doesn't lead us anywhere.

> "Moslims zijn beter te vergelijken met linkse activisten, andere meningen worden niet getolereerd en desnoods met geweld onderdrukt."

What is your beef with this quote? I don't see the problem.

But nitpicking about what insult is worse is beside the point for me. It is not as if most of the left is out to demonize the right and vice versa, and I regret it if you see it that way, and even more so if you think that one side is worse at it. Putting the whole of society in two camps and ascribing behaviour to them which are exacted by a minority as if they are a homogeneous unit.. oversimplified and prejudiced.

This also identities the left entirely with Marxism-Leninism which is like identifying the right entirely with fascism.