The Pros And Cons Of Polarization

From post-Revolution debates about the permissibility of slavery to World War II era debates about national security and the rights of Japanese Americans, American history is seemingly riddled with social and political controversies that often intertwine. While the issues that divide the nation evolve with time, the stark divide they often cause remains constant. Repeatedly, many Americans have felt that they must choose between two contradictory extremes, products of polarization. These extremes commonly fail to realize the nuance of the matter at hand and thus tend to drown out the potentially fruitful middle ground.
Politically, polarization is commonly seen in politicians’ unwillingness to cooperate or compromise with members of the opposing

No topic should be forbidden, as no matter how much an issue may be suppressed, ignoring it will allow it to persist in willful silence. However, discourse should not be without limits. Perhaps most importantly, people must recognize that, discreet or not, hate is not valid discussion. Hate-fueled arguments commonly operate on gross misconceptions that unfairly target certain marginalized groups. When made, these arguments detract from crucial discussion and promote a hostile environment, impeding any compromise or mutual understanding. Malicious criticisms of the opposition work to a similar effect, as they may mimic mudslinging and other discourteous practices. Some argue that limiting hate speech could infringe on First Amendment rights, but this perspective fails to recognize that its limitation does not inherently mean the prohibition of free speech. Instead, it prevents “hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence,” all of which are illegal under international law (Guterres). Resultedly, limited hate speech not only preserves the civility of conversation but also other amendment rights, outweighing the losses of limited hate speech. If clear and effective parameters are set, limited hate speech could greatly benefit the

Human rights should be universally accepted, but many conservatives often do not share this belief. Some seek to bar crucial education and resources regarding race, culture, religion, sexuality, and gender identity. Often, they argue they are justified in their behavior because they are somehow “protecting” the nation and traditional values against “perversions,” “guilt,” and “unfair” advantages. These excuses are nothing but thinly veiled white supremacy and eugenics, a rather concerning emulation of years not long past. People in my life have revealed their intolerance for various marginalized groups, and every time I have been repulsed by them. If they did not change their ways, I cut them off without question. As a queer person, I cannot befriend or date people that do not accept me and other marginalized people as we are. It is not good for my sanity to surround myself with people who cannot even meet the bare minimum, so a lack of respect for marginalized groups and their struggles has to be my red-line. From my own experience, I think there is a need for people to establish red-lines. However, they must question the validity of their red-line. Before establishing one, the individual should consider what the red-line means to them. If it is merely a product of contempt for political