Have you ever been accused of “tone-policing” when you have questioned an extreme comment by an ally? The implication is: You’re missing the forest for the trees! The other side is so evil, that moderating our accusations can only yield advantage to them!

It’s not surprising to see this impatient kind of stance on social media. Especially on social media, where partisan influencers are anxious to boost their online status by wearing their militancy on their sleeves. Besides, who can deny it: clever, snarky put-downs are simply fun and exciting. But the cumulative effects of extreme comments are damaging because they fuel us-versus-them polarization.

As polarization increases, greater pressure for conformity and purity occurs among the in-group. And with a social-psychological phenomenon called out-group homogeneity, all partisans on the other side are assumed to have the same opinions. What gets seen most on social media is what the other side’s worst extremists post…and, so, that must be what everyone on that side thinks.

The threat of the opposition is great, the stakes are high, we need to attack them… it all becomes a vicious circle.

What is surprising about tone-policing, though, is how it parallels a serious argument that depolarization itself is undesirable. Some such arguments appear on the far right but, for whatever reasons, they are more common on the far left.

A common rationale was mentioned: that the other side is too evil and irredeemable to let down our guards. Where does this kind of assumption come from?

Distorted views of the other side are often manufactured by literary intellectuals on each side. They pour gasoline onto the fire by escalating arguments around individualism and identity into warnings about civilization-threatening fascism, authoritarianism, woke ideology, or woke religion. The menace must be destroyed!

There are, though, arguments against depolarization that are less apocalyptic. Let’s take just one simple argument as an example: Social justice advocates say there is no compromising on human rights. If depolarization means compromising with the other side and denying some human rights to some people, it would be immoral to depolarize.

But here is the point that is missed: depolarization is not compromise. It is, rather, trying to see the opposition as human beings, and trying to understand their perspectives, even if you vehemently disagree with them. It is not about “splitting the difference.” No one should ever compromise about human rights.

Each side speaks a different language. Both sides may feel that the other side is more extreme, but that is a pointless debate. Both sides contribute plenty. And, seriously, both sides should consider the likely benefits of depolarization: greater understanding, and an environment in which our political leaders can cooperate on our behalf. Whenever you speak/post in a polarizing fashion, it has the net effect of subverting your own goals for progress.

The Schoolmarm has nothing but scorn for arguments against depolarization. No, of course we don’t have to agree on issues or ideologies. But don’t give the opposition fodder that they’ll use to demonize your side. Don’t energize them by showing how much you hate them.