Disagree button on threads

Gabriel_H

LalMirchi wrote: »

I disagree.

There is no need for a disagree button.

^^ That.

Aurielle

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

They should remove all reaction buttons, none of them serve any meaningful purpose.

I agree. Consider, too, the fact that some people use the “insightful” button as a disagree button, while others use it as intended. It’s ultimately meaningless, and therefore serves no real purpose here.

That's a myth perpetuated by someone who couldn't come to terms with players with an opposing view getting Insightful reactions to their comments. Either they couldn't comprehend why they were tagged insightful, or just resented it, who knows? But the Insightful tag most assuredly is not a disagree button, as it awards the poster forum/karma points.

I’m not saying it’s a disagree button — just that some people have admitted they use it as a disagree button. It’s not a myth if people are claiming they actually do it.

I remember the posts where it was claimed that's what people were using it for. But I don't recall any of them specifically stating that that's what they use it for.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/382920/so-what-makes-you-click-insightful-vs-awesome-or-agree

"Insightful" to troll.
"Agree" when the message is boring and right.
"Awesome" when it's ight and funny (or sometime blatantly wrong).

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/153868/is-insightful-the-new-black

I use insightful as the new lol. Someone else thought if it, awesome would've been better, but I'm going with it.

Same here, I will just start using insightful as the LoL or Disagree button just because its already started may as well not rock the boat.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/362952/does-eso-forum-need-funny-button-in-addition-to-insightful-agree-and-awesome

Now I have to settle for giving people sarcastic insightfuls.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/485239/how-do-you-decide-whether-to-mark-a-forum-response-insightful-agree-or-awesome

Insightful: Generally if you say something stupid that reveals your bias or ineptitude
Agree: As per the label
Awesome: Funny

The only thing I would add to the above, is when someone is clearly trolling a thread and giving a response meant to bait or inflame, I might toss them an Insightful in lieu of LOL. Yes, they gain an Insightful, but everyone else who sees it knows it is deeply sarcastic.

I use "insightful" sarcastically quite often. Like this meme:

Just a few examples of people admitting to using “insightful” to mean the exact opposite.

ArchangelIsraphel

I find it unfortunate that certain forms of social media have encouraged the mentality that a topic is somehow not worthy of discussion if it gets "ratioed". It seems to me that the goal of people wanting a "disagree" button is to shut down discussion before it even starts.

If you find a topic absurd or disagree with some aspect of it, stating why and presenting your ideas is so much more useful to the OP than keeping those thoughts to yourself. Wouldn't providing well thought out, polite feedback to the OP help them gain insight on why you disagree?

And what if someone agrees with a post, while you do not. Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

And if you and another poster both disagree with OP- would it not be so much more interesting to see if the reason you disagree is the same as another persons?

Ideas are not threats, we do not need to "ratio" posters for not agreeing with the general populace of the forums.

Elsonso

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Because people live to click the disagree button when they dislike certain posters/posted ideas. It happens - and I've been on various forums where it's so common and so egregious the forum owners removed the option to disagree by clicking a button.

Here, you can surely disagree, but you need to make a post at least stating you disagree, and in general, it's better to state why, so there's a real discussion, in a forum FOR discussion.

The whole point is to be able to disagree without having to give a reason. People can just disagree.

That's exactly what happened (and I think here too, why there isn't one now) - people used it to do as is done on reddit with "thumbs down" to sink posts. It's a form of trolling when pointed at particular posters or posts.

That is my whole point exactly, there is already an agree and awesome why not a disagree? Give the community itself the ability to sink the post.

Why do we want a way to sink, or "ratio", comments?

Aurielle wrote: »

Just a few examples of people admitting to using “insightful” to mean the exact opposite.

Ultimately, I think that backfires pretty bad.

darvaria

There are already core groups of regular forum posters that promote posts from certain players. Putting this "disagree" would discourage anyone new to the game or new to forum posting from posting. They would get so many disagrees from the regular forum trolls, it would be disheartening.

Not a good idea but I can see your point.

Marko21xx

darvaria wrote: »

There are already core groups of regular forum posters that promote posts from certain players. Putting this "disagree" would discourage anyone new to the game or new to forum posting from posting. They would get so many disagrees from the regular forum trolls, it would be disheartening.

Not a good idea but I can see your point.

being part of a forum's mafia doesn't seem healthy

Syldras

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

Well, the problem is, my friend little Bosmer @ArchangelIsraphel , that I'm not so sure whether everyone really enjoys discussing things in the usual sense. A test of arguments and wit may bring joy to some... others just explode like Rumpelstiltskin and are never to be seen again, once someone disagrees and shatters their "grandiose" ideas

Dagoth_Rac

There is really only 1 way to agree with a post. But there are myriad ways to disagree.

"I like curation"

Agree? It means you like curation. Not much more to add.

Disagree? Do you not like curation at all? I've heard some people complain that curation just means, "People run stuff until they fill sticker book, then abandon the content."

Disagree? Do you prefer a currency to curation? That you can collect to then buy the item of your choice, bypassing RNG completely?

Disagree? Do you feel curation does not go far enough? That you would like more sources of weapons/jewelry? Or you want quest coffers and treasure chests to be curated, too?

We don't really understand the nuance of your disagreement. The contentious issues on forum are rarely black-and-white issues with a strict and narrow 2 sides. And turning every post into a battle of agree/disagree tends to turn every issue, no matter how complex, into a shallow binary conflict.

ArchangelIsraphel

Syldras wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

Well, the problem is, my friend little Bosmer @ArchangelIsraphel , that I'm not so sure whether everyone really enjoys discussing things in the usual sense. A test of arguments and wit may bring joy to some... others just explode like Rumpelstiltskin and are never to be seen again, once someone disagrees and shatters their "grandiose" ideas

All too true, my Telvanni friend! I've always found a great deal of delight in the exchange of information. It actually makes me happy when someone has something to add that I didn't know before, or speaks from a perspective I hadn't considered yet.

My personal take is that calling an idea into question is actually a way of showing respect to the person making the argument. All too often, the desire to discuss a certain aspect gets interpreted as an "attack", when the intention was simply to raise a point that the poster hadn't considered before.

Also, I've never felt that someone had to have ideas that align with mine all of the time to still enjoy talking to them. I may not always agree with a concept someone else has, but learning about how they think is still interesting to me.

ZOS_Kevin

We have looked into a dislike or disagree button, but we have found through research and feedback from others who use Vanilla forum services that a dislike button when not tied to a mechanism (like surfacing content or prioritizing conversations) often becomes a disruptive tool that doesn't help to facilitate constructive conversation. Obviously there is more at play there, like the content and the usefulness of the tool to the user, but we do not have any plans to add a dislike/ disapprove button anytime soon.

colossalvoids

There's no need as we already see absurd posts and can engage them directly, or let them sit with no attention given. Or use "insightful" as it's obviously not anyhow insightful and used as alternative by quite a few.

Syldras

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

My personal take is that calling an idea into question is actually a way of showing respect to the person making the argument. All too often, the desire to discuss a certain aspect gets interpreted as an "attack", when the intention was simply to raise a point that the poster hadn't considered before.

It certainly is.

I want to be honest, no matter if it might sound rude: What do I do if I consider someone a complete idiot (which is more a question of mindset and character traits than knowledge*)? I usually ignore them. I'm not willing to waste my time contemplating their drivel. If I write a reply, and even more so a longer reply, it normally means that I am actually interested in a conversation. It means there is some kind of genuine interest, in one way or another.

*(Lack of knowledge is fine. Misunderstandings are fine. What puts someone into the "idiot" category for me is unneccessary rudeness or aggression, throwing around insults or weird assumptions or accusations, and, most of all, an obvious unwillingness to discuss the topic in a civilized way).

Tandor

PDarkBHood wrote: »

Now calm down people. Let's agree to disagree about the disagree button. End of story, don't make me come back here, got it!

What a disagreeable approach !

Tandor

Syldras wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

Well, the problem is, my friend little Bosmer @ArchangelIsraphel , that I'm not so sure whether everyone really enjoys discussing things in the usual sense. A test of arguments and wit may bring joy to some... others just explode like Rumpelstiltskin and are never to be seen again, once someone disagrees and shatters their "grandiose" ideas

You can spot them easily, they're the topic OPs who start by replying to each and every dissenting comment, then report the dissenters, before asking the Mods to lock the topic !

Drammanoth

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

but we do not have any plans to add a dislike/ disapprove button anytime soon.

And hopefully you never will. GOOD ON YOU, ZOS!

@Syldras 's already said - it is LAZY, and it promotes trolling.

Let this be a definitive answer.

Syldras

Tandor wrote: »

You can spot them easily, they're the topic OPs who start by replying to each and every dissenting comment with crude accusations or insults, then report the dissenters, before asking the Mods to lock the topic !

Fixed it for you

But yes, I agree.

Shara_Wynn

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

I see a need for a disagree button to be placed on posts so the community can ratio post that seem to be absurd.
please consider this.

I got trolled for even suggesting this!

Then I was informed that the "insightful" response was apparently put in place instead of a disagree button.

Then I put up a non-serious poll up and got criticism for that.

It's a tough crowd on these forums! I honestly hover over that post reply or post discussion button sometimes, just to make sure I am ready for the flack that will likely ensue should I dare to post anything.

I too wanted a disagree button but it seems that "we" cannot be trusted with one and given the tone of these forums, I am now, sadly tempted to agree.

Stafford197

I feel that a dislike button would mostly be used to troll. If a comment is good or not good it’s healthier to let it be determined by the current system imo!

Adaarye

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

I see a need for a disagree button to be placed on posts so the community can ratio post that seem to be absurd.
please consider this.

I think the "Insightful" button is what most use to disagree since the disagree button was deleted.

Insightful =

Drammanoth

Shara_Wynn wrote: »

(...) Then I put up a non-serious poll up and got criticism for that. (...)

I remember this poll - I have no idea why people even considered it to be 'non serious' - I was mad at the fact that they were actually calling it "biased" WTH? (just in case, I am serious)

ArchangelIsraphel

Syldras wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

My personal take is that calling an idea into question is actually a way of showing respect to the person making the argument. All too often, the desire to discuss a certain aspect gets interpreted as an "attack", when the intention was simply to raise a point that the poster hadn't considered before.

It certainly is.

I want to be honest, no matter if it might sound rude: What do I do if I consider someone a complete idiot (which is more a question of mindset and character traits than knowledge*)? I usually ignore them. I'm not willing to waste my time contemplating their drivel. If I write a reply, and even more so a longer reply, it normally means that I am actually interested in a conversation. It means there is some kind of genuine interest, in one way or another.

*(Lack of knowledge is fine. Misunderstandings are fine. What puts someone into the "idiot" category for me is unneccessary rudeness or aggression, throwing around insults or weird assumptions or accusations, and, most of all, an obvious unwillingness to discuss the topic in a civilized way).

Absolutely agree. Resorting to insults instead of actually presenting a sound argument is something that happens way, way too often. I've always found some of the assumptions people pull out of their hat to be really, really strange.

On the subject of honesty, I've always considered it necessary for direct and concise communication. I do find myself wondering, however, if part of what we are seeing may be the result of cultural conflict? Some people seem to find extremely direct communication "rude", while others prefer it.

For example, I find it necessary to soften uncomfortable topics, correction, and criticism by using euphemisms with American colleagues, or else I will be thought of as rude. (Even in the Northeast U.S., where we're often looked on as being much more direct than the south!)

Meanwhile, at home with the German side of my family, we are very direct but polite with one another. I like that direct style of communication, because to me, it leaves less room for misunderstandings. I've never thought of it as rude, nor do I feel offended by it in the least. The Polish side of my family is also very direct.

(I do not intend to generalize Americans or Germans with that statement, or make this an EU v.s. NA thing. There's all kinds of nuances involved, and certainly differences in communication style depending on what region one lives in, how one was raised and educated, etc. I was born in the US, raised in the US, but have a multicultural background retaining strong connections to the countries of my families origin. These are just my observations from that perspective.)

Syldras

@ArchangelIsraphel

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Resorting to insults instead of actually presenting a sound argument is something that happens way, way too often. I've always found some of the assumptions people pull out of their hat to be really, really strange.

Indeed. I can't count the times I've read an accusation coming out of the blue (from my perspective, at least) that seemed more than absurd to me. Obviously one cannot criticize an idea (although already the discussing of ideas instead of people seems to be alien to some) without being a troll, a noob, jealous, insane, the political enemy (whatever group that is depends on how the person identifies themselves - it is clear that YOU have to be the opposite if you don't share their opinion), and if one adresses a social problem, of course it's either virtue signalling or whiteknighting, but never could one be actually truly concerned with it, or affected by it oneself. [snip] If it wasn't that sad, I could laugh about the absurdity of it all. Ah, yes, and of course I'm always (what was it...? ah, yes) offended. Yes. I'm horribly offended. While sitting in front of my computer drinking tea and reading the forum, and randomly commenting on this or that which I find interesting (sometimes things I can't remember anymore when I'm off to do something else 10 minutes later). Sometimes I'm even so offended that I'm grinning or chuckling and shaking my head at some absurd assumption.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

On the subject of honesty, I've always considered it necessary for direct and concise communication. I do find myself wondering, however, if part of what we are seeing may be the result of cultural conflict? Some people seem to find extremely direct communication "rude", while others prefer it.
For example, I find it necessary to soften uncomfortable topics, correction, and criticism by using euphemisms with American colleagues, or else I will be thought of as rude. (Even in the Northeast U.S., where we're often looked on as being much more direct than the south!)
Meanwhile, at home with the German side of my family, we are very direct but polite with one another. I like that direct style of communication, because to me, it leaves less room for misunderstandings. I've never thought of it as rude, nor do I feel offended by it in the least. The Polish side of my family is also very direct.
(I do not intend to generalize Americans or Germans with that statement, or make this an EU v.s. NA thing. There's all kinds of nuances involved, and certainly differences in communication style depending on what region one lives in, how one was raised and educated, etc. I was born in the US, raised in the US, but have a multicultural background retaining strong connections to the countries of my families origin. These are just my observations from that perspective.)

I think this is very much possible. It might still depend on region and probably there are individual differences between families as well, but in Germany, I never heard that one should not discuss about politics or religion, for example. Which is a thing I've seen in US-American forums quite often, which always caught my attention. In Germany, a few decades ago, it was the opposite, actually: It was considered that an adult man (gender roles still were stricter back then, later it extended to every adult) would have to be versed in politics and religion, have an opinion on both, and have to be able to explain and also defend their stance in that regard with logical arguments. People would meet up to discuss these things as something like a passtime.

Anyway, whether directness is considered rude or not, one could still react calmly in such a situation and try to resolve misunderstandings. If someone throws a fit, it's not entirely explainable with cultural differences alone.

[edited for inappropriate content]

vsrs_au

No, disagree/downvote buttons just make forums unfriendly places, e.g. like reddit.

chessalavakia_ESO

I'm generally opposed to disagree buttons as I feel they can be used to attempt to silence people and can limit feedback.

With that said, I think the forums might benefit from having some level of limitations on the amount that some of us more veteran forum users post in some categories.

Many of us more veteran players are relatively calcified in our views and as such discussion with us can hold limited value as we don't really shift our views based on what other people say and we've already said our position on many of the issues dozens of times already.

When I was younger I ignored the advice not to discuss politics and I used to regularly discuss politics IRL with other people. I won more than I lost but, my positions rarely moved much when I lost and the same was true for most of the people I argued with. For the few who did actually have their positions shift many of them also shifted with the next person they talked to so my persuading them had no lasting impact. In the end, while I did learn some things from the process occasionally most of the time I probably just annoyed people and I doubt I lead to any lasting shifts in anyone's thinking. As a result I've generally tried to limit the amount I discuss politics IRL.

Nowadays, here in the United States politics can be very strongly tied to how people see the world, how others see them, and the information/entertainment they consume which makes discussions even more of a mess.

TheMajority

Disagree buttons are just an excuse to avoid owning up to the reasons which lead to why you disagree and a way to avoid true discussion on a matter by silencing an idea with a large number

If you disagree with something, be confident and tell the reasons for it. Don't hide behind a silent group pressing a button.

Tommy_The_Gun

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We have looked into a dislike or disagree button, but we have found through research and feedback from others who use Vanilla forum services that a dislike button when not tied to a mechanism (like surfacing content or prioritizing conversations) often becomes a disruptive tool that doesn't help to facilitate constructive conversation. Obviously there is more at play there, like the content and the usefulness of the tool to the user, but we do not have any plans to add a dislike/ disapprove button anytime soon.

Glad to hear it !

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

Well, the problem is, my friend little Bosmer ArchangelIsraphel , that I'm not so sure whether everyone really enjoys discussing things in the usual sense. A test of arguments and wit may bring joy to some... others just explode like Rumpelstiltskin and are never to be seen again, once someone disagrees and shatters their "grandiose" ideas

I have run into this on other forums. A lot of people don't want actual discussion, they want echo chambers all agreeing to their idea, and any form of dissent is seen as rude or toxic.

As for a disagree button, I would far prefer reaction buttons go away on a forum rather than bringing disagree buttons to it.

If you disagree with something, it is far more valuable to either completely ignore it, if you can't articulate *why* you disagree, or explain why you disagree with something. Just clicking a button that says 'disagree' doesn't further the conversation and no one knows what part of a discussion a person might disagree with.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

@ArchangelIsraphel

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Resorting to insults instead of actually presenting a sound argument is something that happens way, way too often. I've always found some of the assumptions people pull out of their hat to be really, really strange.

Indeed. I can't count the times I've read an accusation coming out of the blue (from my perspective, at least) that seemed more than absurd to me. Obviously one cannot criticize an idea (although already the discussing of ideas instead of people seems to be alien to some) without being a troll, a noob, jealous, insane, the political enemy (whatever group that is depends on how the person identifies themselves - it is clear that YOU have to be the opposite if you don't share their opinion), and if one adresses a social problem, of course it's either virtue signalling or whiteknighting, but never could one be actually truly concerned with it, or affected by it oneself. [snip] If it wasn't that sad, I could laugh about the absurdity of it all. Ah, yes, and of course I'm always (what was it...? ah, yes) offended. Yes. I'm horribly offended. While sitting in front of my computer drinking tea and reading the forum, and randomly commenting on this or that which I find interesting (sometimes things I can't remember anymore when I'm off to do something else 10 minutes later). Sometimes I'm even so offended that I'm grinning or chuckling and shaking my head at some absurd assumption.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

On the subject of honesty, I've always considered it necessary for direct and concise communication. I do find myself wondering, however, if part of what we are seeing may be the result of cultural conflict? Some people seem to find extremely direct communication "rude", while others prefer it.
For example, I find it necessary to soften uncomfortable topics, correction, and criticism by using euphemisms with American colleagues, or else I will be thought of as rude. (Even in the Northeast U.S., where we're often looked on as being much more direct than the south!)
Meanwhile, at home with the German side of my family, we are very direct but polite with one another. I like that direct style of communication, because to me, it leaves less room for misunderstandings. I've never thought of it as rude, nor do I feel offended by it in the least. The Polish side of my family is also very direct.
(I do not intend to generalize Americans or Germans with that statement, or make this an EU v.s. NA thing. There's all kinds of nuances involved, and certainly differences in communication style depending on what region one lives in, how one was raised and educated, etc. I was born in the US, raised in the US, but have a multicultural background retaining strong connections to the countries of my families origin. These are just my observations from that perspective.)

I think this is very much possible. It might still depend on region and probably there are individual differences between families as well, but in Germany, I never heard that one should not discuss about politics or religion, for example. Which is a thing I've seen in US-American forums quite often, which always caught my attention. In Germany, a few decades ago, it was the opposite, actually: It was considered that an adult man (gender roles still were stricter back then, later it extended to every adult) would have to be versed in politics and religion, have an opinion on both, and have to be able to explain and also defend their stance in that regard with logical arguments. People would meet up to discuss these things as something like a passtime.

Anyway, whether directness is considered rude or not, one could still react calmly in such a situation and try to resolve misunderstandings. If someone throws a fit, it's not entirely explainable with cultural differences alone.

I think how much time people spend on certain types of social media also affects how they handle dissenting views.

I have seen a lot of people who come from places like tumblr, where they can completely block out things they dislike and where they can make sure dissenting views can't interact with their blogs (which, to be clear, I am not against), who tend to be more in the 'anything slightly negative or not perfectly aligning with my view is toxic', while people who come from more forum based places tend to be more able to take criticism, or just see things they don't like without imploding.

This is, of course, not always true, and it could simply be that a particular type of person is drawn to the sites where they are able to curate what they see, rather than the curation itself lending itself to the issue at hand.

[edited to remove quote]

TaSheen

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wouldn't a logical discussion with someone who has counterpoints to yours be more fun, and potentially broaden the horizons of both posters?

Well, the problem is, my friend little Bosmer ArchangelIsraphel , that I'm not so sure whether everyone really enjoys discussing things in the usual sense. A test of arguments and wit may bring joy to some... others just explode like Rumpelstiltskin and are never to be seen again, once someone disagrees and shatters their "grandiose" ideas

I have run into this on other forums. A lot of people don't want actual discussion, they want echo chambers all agreeing to their idea, and any form of dissent is seen as rude or toxic.

As for a disagree button, I would far prefer reaction buttons go away on a forum rather than bringing disagree buttons to it.

If you disagree with something, it is far more valuable to either completely ignore it, if you can't articulate *why* you disagree, or explain why you disagree with something. Just clicking a button that says 'disagree' doesn't further the conversation and no one knows what part of a discussion a person might disagree with.

Not to mention that an anonymous disagree button (like the current crop of "agreement" ones) as well as not furthering a conversation doesn't show who's disagreeing, and that's basically shutting down conversation completely.

Syldras

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

With that said, I think the forums might benefit from having some level of limitations on the amount that some of us more veteran forum users post in some categories.

I disagree. It would cut off interesting ongoing discussions and it might prevent important information from being shared.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Many of us more veteran players are relatively calcified in our views and as such discussion with us can hold limited value as we don't really shift our views based on what other people say and we've already said our position on many of the issues dozens of times already.

Why would one have the forum software to limit one's posts because of that? If one feels a discussion doesn't help in any way or one has nothing more to say, one can just choose not to post.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

When I was younger I ignored the advice not to discuss politics and I used to regularly discuss politics IRL with other people. I won more than I lost but, my positions rarely moved much when I lost and the same was true for most of the people I argued with. For the few who did actually have their positions shift many of them also shifted with the next person they talked to so my persuading them had no lasting impact. In the end, while I did learn some things from the process occasionally most of the time I probably just annoyed people and I doubt I lead to any lasting shifts in anyone's thinking. As a result I've generally tried to limit the amount I discuss politics IRL.

I approach these discussions with a different mindset: It's not about winning, and it's absolutely okay to agree to disagree in the end. What I am interested in his how other people view the world and on which things they base their opinions. Sometimes during a discussion we indeed notice that we have not considered some aspects, or sometimes that a belief is based on prejudice or false assumptions, which does lead to reconsidering things.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Nowadays, here in the United States politics can be very strongly tied to how people see the world, how others see them, and the information/entertainment they consume which makes discussions even more of a mess.

The main problem I see here (we have the same thing going on in my country) is that people increasingly think in stereotypes. Meaning that if you are "faction a", you also have to like "thing b", and share "opinion d, e, f and g", and some people can't imagine anymore that there are individuals who freely observe and contemplate topics to make a decision based on these observations alone, by using their intellect, instead on conforming to expectations such as "as a member of group x you have to have opinion y about this".