Here's a good example of what I mean by them mimicking each other. This issue of gun shootings in the US is really fascinating if you look at it from far far away with no emotional tie to the subject (which is hard to do for many people, including me).

When Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were assassinated by gunshots in their home a few months ago, many right wingers seemed indifferent and some right wingers were even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, left wingers were correctly very upset. They accused the right wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.

Now we have the other side when social activist Charlie Kirk got assassinated by gunshot. It's a mirror image. Many left wingers seem indifferent and some left wingers are even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, right wingers are correctly very upset. They accuse the left wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.

I see the right wing accusing Antifa and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. I see the left wing accusing Proud Boys and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. The two sides just like to point fingers at the other side over and over again. Just a ton of whataboutisms. This is probably the biggest symptom that makes overt their polarization. They don't share the same perceived reality.

If you can't agree with that, then we're just another example that don't share a perceived reality. People need to be able to ask themselves, "What if I'm wrong?" People don't do that anymore. I'm trying to though. I hope you do too.

edit: OK, so parent edited to match what I wrote and now I'm being downvoted because I look like I copied parent?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730763

When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan Moral Flexibility in American Politics

This article presents results from a series of online surveys—conducted among American voters during and after the Trump administration that show how voters from both parties provide explicit moral justification for politicians’ statements that flagrantly violate the norm of fact-grounding. Such justification is inconsistent with prevailing theory, whereby partisan voters’ tendency to mistake misinformation for fact is what drives their positive response to misinformation purveyed by partisan standard-bearers. The studies presented here provide consistent evidence of such factual flexibility. Yet they also provide consistent evidence of moral flexibility, whereby voters justify demagogic fact-flouting as an effective way of proclaiming a deeply resonant political “truth.” A key implication is that political misinformation cannot be fully eliminated by getting voters to distinguish fact from fiction; voters’ moral orientations may be such that they prefer fact-flouting. More general lessons pertain to the role of democratic norms in liberal democracies and to how moral orientations relate to perceived interests.

Relevant quote, p. 227: Table 6 presents responses that attest to a range of distinct but overlapping themes in these qualitative data. In particular, some articulate to moral flexibility as a strategy in partisan politics, such that they weigh the “deeper truth” more than commitment to fact-grounding. One such example, expressed by a respondent who supported the DeSantis statement, was presented in the introduction of this article. “I believe that there are times when it is more important for a leader to send the right message, even if it is not entirely accurate” (respondent 216). Another respondent, who assessed the “the right message” as more important that objective evidence when evaluating Biden’s statement said: “In a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was more important for President Biden to appeal to American values of patriotism and the willingness to step up for others. Most people are aware that while vaccinations greatly reduce the spread of disease, there is no vaccine that can completely, utterly stop it. However, Biden was using strong, emotional, positive language to encourage Americans to do what was morally correct and patriotic at that moment, and I feel that was entirely appropriate” (respondent 37).

It's also possible that you and I have a different idea of what the goals of DEI are and should be.

However, the comments that Zuckerberg is making makes me think he really thinks that the goals of DEI are themselves intrinsically bad. He seems to be leaning into the stereotypical type of thinking that causes the issues that DEI is trying to address in the first place.

I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that he'd be capable of diving into more nuance.