Can you expand on what you mean by “politicized” here? Here are some things I think I’ve heard it used to mean —
“Aligned with a partisan axis”; e.g. coal vs. wind power are politicized in that politicians of one party have favored building more coal power plants and opposed building windmills, and the other party have done the opposite.
“Treated as activism or signaling”; e.g. holiday greetings are politicized when someone gets into an argument with a barista who says “Happy Holidays”, because they believe in the War on Christmas.
“Used as an example in political argument”; e.g. some will complain that a school shooting has been politicized when people use it as an example in arguments about gun control or self-defense.
I think I should have used the word “polarizing” instead of “politicizing”.
I mean the first two also with the implication that people treat these things as quasi-conflicts between quasi-tribes, and so become less likely to focus on what is correct and beneficial and more likely to focus on signalling tribal membership and allegiance.
I think your third bullet point is related, but not necessarily what I’m talking about. Arguing about how society should respond to and think about school shootings is important. School shootings are bad and should be prevented just like traffic accidents and heart disease are bad and should be prevented. I believe responses like gun control are politicized in that people are likely to pattern match “gun control” into a quasi-tribe conflict and then respond accordingly, instead of actually thinking about it, or as should often be done, ignoring if they are not well versed on the relevant issues. But just talking about issues and which parties plan what responses to those issues isn’t necessarily a problem, except if it causes people to start contextualizing the issue as a quasi-tribal conflict.
Maybe instead of “politicized” or “polarized” a term like “quasi-tribalized” or “in-group-out-group-conflictized”, or something similar but less rhetorically unwieldily.
Can you expand on what you mean by “politicized” here? Here are some things I think I’ve heard it used to mean —
“Aligned with a partisan axis”; e.g. coal vs. wind power are politicized in that politicians of one party have favored building more coal power plants and opposed building windmills, and the other party have done the opposite.
“Treated as activism or signaling”; e.g. holiday greetings are politicized when someone gets into an argument with a barista who says “Happy Holidays”, because they believe in the War on Christmas.
“Used as an example in political argument”; e.g. some will complain that a school shooting has been politicized when people use it as an example in arguments about gun control or self-defense.
I think I should have used the word “polarizing” instead of “politicizing”.
I mean the first two also with the implication that people treat these things as quasi-conflicts between quasi-tribes, and so become less likely to focus on what is correct and beneficial and more likely to focus on signalling tribal membership and allegiance.
I think your third bullet point is related, but not necessarily what I’m talking about. Arguing about how society should respond to and think about school shootings is important. School shootings are bad and should be prevented just like traffic accidents and heart disease are bad and should be prevented. I believe responses like gun control are politicized in that people are likely to pattern match “gun control” into a quasi-tribe conflict and then respond accordingly, instead of actually thinking about it, or as should often be done, ignoring if they are not well versed on the relevant issues. But just talking about issues and which parties plan what responses to those issues isn’t necessarily a problem, except if it causes people to start contextualizing the issue as a quasi-tribal conflict.
Maybe instead of “politicized” or “polarized” a term like “quasi-tribalized” or “in-group-out-group-conflictized”, or something similar but less rhetorically unwieldily.