You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah, no. Only one side is going to the extreme end. Don’t both sides this nonsense.
The article isn’t blaming both sides, it’s suggesting fighting against foreign electoral interference done through social media, and adopting PR to prevent outside influences from causing polarisation. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach, IMO.
It’s the concept of polarization that doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m reading the term too literally. It’s just extremism on one side from what I can see.
I don’t think the term implies that the left is causing it in some way, but I do get where you’re coming from, and agree that the extremism is one-sided.
I think the article is just suggesting that the Liberals need to address the source of the problem.
The extremism is from one side, but there is a risk that, to protect against that extremism, a polar opposite comes (Liberals most probably). Also, maybe im misunserstanding the word “polarisation”, but i understand it to mean “two polar opposites”, neither of which is necessarily extremist. For instance, I would argue that the US is polarised, but only the Republicans are the extremists, while Democrats are a defensive response to the Republicans.
A new Conservative leader could do that, but PP is going to be up to his same old shenanigans.
