I’ve been thinking a lot about why modern debates — from geopolitics to social issues — feel increasingly hostile and polarized.
West vs Russia.
China vs USA.
Israel vs Palestine.
Men vs women.
Black vs white.
LGBTQ vs straight.
Different topics, same pattern.
Each side is convinced the other is evil.
I don’t think this framing helps us understand anything. In fact, I think it makes things worse.
Right and wrong depend on alignment, not truth
I don’t see “right” and “wrong” as universal properties of actions.
I see them as signals of alignment.
Alignment with:
- law
- culture
- religion
- politics
- social norms
When something is called wrong, what it usually means is:
“This action does not align with the system I live under.”
For example, humans eat animals and plants.
From our legal and cultural perspective, that’s normal.
From the perspective of animals, we are mass killers.
From the perspective of plants, we are destroyers.
Nothing about the act changes — only the frame of reference does.
Geopolitics isn’t moral — it’s interest-based
This becomes obvious when looking at geopolitics.
Countries don’t act because they are good or evil.
They act to protect:
- security
- resources
- influence
- economic stability
- strategic advantage
Moral language comes after decisions are made, not before.
People don’t rally behind “strategic depth” or “trade routes”.
They rally behind words like freedom, evil, terror, or existential threat.
These words simplify complex realities into something emotionally actionable.
Comfort has upstream costs
If you live comfortably inside a powerful system, it’s worth being honest about this:
Your lifestyle didn’t appear out of nowhere.
Stability, cheap goods, secure borders, and economic privilege are often maintained by actions that are:
- invisible
- outsourced
- morally uncomfortable
Calling leaders “evil” while enjoying the benefits of the system they protect is an easy position — but not an honest one.
This isn’t about endorsement.
It’s about acknowledging causality.
Polarization is not an accident
Extreme polarization doesn’t happen because people suddenly became stupid or hateful.
It happens because:
- complex problems are simplified into identity battles
- disagreement is reframed as moral failure
- leaders benefit from divided populations
Once an issue becomes “good people vs evil people”, dialogue ends. Only loyalty remains.
That’s how you get extremists on every side — religious, racial, political, or ideological.
Different beliefs. Same mechanics.
My goal isn’t neutrality — it’s clarity
I’m not saying all sides are the same.
I’m not denying harm, injustice, or suffering.
What I’m rejecting is the idea that moral outrage leads to understanding.
In my experience, it does the opposite:
- it hides incentives
- it masks power dynamics
- it turns people into symbols instead of humans
If we want fewer extremists, less hatred, and more stability, we need to talk less about evil and more about interests.
The question I try to ask
Whenever I feel myself being pulled into outrage, I stop and ask:
Who benefits if I believe this narrative?
That question doesn’t make me passive. It makes me harder to manipulate.
And in a world full of incentives to divide, that feels like a small but necessary act.
Did you find this useful?
I'm always happy to help! You can show your support and appreciation by Buying me a coffee (I love coffee!).