We have seen an increase in polarization in recent years; personally I am convinced that it is due to the current prevalence of social media as the primary theatre for discussion. Since we mostly discuss in what is essentially an anonymous fashion, many people abandon simple civility and revert to the most basic animalistic instincts, turning everything into, as you note, a pissing contest. They want to prove they're right, period, and are interested in what others say only insofar as it provides support for their own position or gives them something to attack. We see people insulting each other over politics, over religion, over science, over nutrition, and of course over comics (because naturally, the matter of whether Thor can beat Squirrel Girl is worth calling someone a #?%$).



I agree. I would add that these people are probably cowards. If they feel they must insult you, they should have the fortitude to do it in your face and not mumbling something from the relative safety of their group of buddies. Seeing that they don't, and prefer sotto voce insults to the elemental courtesy of asking "oh, and why might it be that you do not care for character XYZ, which I personally view as a pinnacle of the comic-book field?", I would dismiss whatever they say as the irrelevant background noise of a humanity that counts way too many individuals.



There as in politics or everywhere else for that matter.

I think this a huge factor, and one of the reasons I largely avoid discussing politics or religion in online forums.  I'll do those things plenty offline, but no more online political or religious debates for me.  Heck, even apart from those topics, if I need to talk with someone about something that is even remotely sensitive or could be misread, I call them to speak with them in person.  Online communication is missing too many physical social cues that disarm confrontational situations (eye contact, a smile, posture, tone of voice, facial expressions), and without them I find people often interpret online comments in the worst possible light, esp. in the area of politics or social issues.  All we see is text and an opinion we disagree with, not a person with complex motives and reasons for believing what they do.

I try to remember that behind every opinion, no matter how toxic it seems to me, is a person who has a story, who has reasons for believing what they do.  You don't have to agree with the opinions, you don't even have to agree with the reasons, but you can at least try to make an attempt to understand why they got where they are.  Because if I'm honest with myself, I can't say that I'm so inherently righteous or moral that I wouldn't have arrived at the same position if I had the experiences that other person did.

Keep in mind that anyone who uses the term "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" unironically is almost universally as pathetic little twerp with zero social skills who needs to be thumped upside the head until they can form a cogent thought.

I sense a new comic book character in the making: Bill the Brutal Buddhist. Or maybe just The Brutal Buddhist, if it's a superhero series.

It never did, but when certain ideas are pushed too far, they become their own opposite. The USSR was supposed to further a system in which workers would finally be free, but it turned into a very repressive regime when it forgot common sense. Extremism in anything leads to bad results.

Preventing Caucasians from serving burritos is not social justice, I'm sure you'll agree. Making sure Americans of Mexican origin are not discriminated against by the government is social justice. Forbidding people to applaud after a public presentation because it might offend deaf people is not social justice. Making sure deaf people have access to information that is usually transmitted by sound waves is social justice. Calling a referee "blind" because he missed something on the tennis court is not an insult to the blind, and insisting that no one use the term "blind" is not social justice. Not using the N word, because of its strongly negative historical and social connotation, is social justice (or at least good manners). The vast majority of us can agree on where to trace the line between what is and what is not social justice, and the blurry zone between the two is kind of narrow (and should be open to discussion rather than immediate condemnation by either side).

The main problem with pushing what is originally a progressive agenda too far is that it often backfires in the end. When a conservative group expresses its interest in more responsible government spending, in increased personal freedom, in respect for law-and-order, most people tend to agree or at least see the point. But if the same group adds that same-sex marriage is a sin and should be banned, that women who underwent abortions should go to jail or that immigration should be limited to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, most of us will forget all about the sensible points and focus on the nonsense (and rightly so, I'd say). The same goes for the left. If important leftist advocacy groups start making the use of dozens of new gender pronouns and five different toilets as important as abortion rights and gay marriage, the majority of the population will say "s%$# this" and turn its back on the left. Which means things that actually promote social justice will get canned.

I am thoroughly convinced that such a reaction explains a lot of the votes that Trump got in 2016. The ones I could engage in a civil discussion with were generally not enthused about the man, and disliked many points on his agenda. However, they were fed up with what they perceived as a Left gone wild. (I'd say that they were factually wrong about many things, but facts are not very relevant nowadays when we talk about perceptions).