When Your Ideology Turns Friends into Foes

 

Ever had a blether with somebody online that's so deep into their political bubble that even a mild mannered news article from their own side gets branded as enemy propaganda? Lol, there's lots of it about. Picture this, a staunch left winger scrolling through the Daily Record, a paper that's more left leaning than a lovechild spawned by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. But no, to them it's suddenly soft "centre right propaganda" or worse, "straight up Tory infiltration." It's not paranoia, or not totally. It's the 'contrast effect' in full swing, that sneaky psychological trick where your extreme views make everything else look a bit more villainous than it really is.

There's a lot of stuff online about it, the contrast effect is part of how your brain judges the world, especially in politics. When you're parked at one end of the left/right spectrum, say very far left, anything that doesn't match your intensity gets pushed even further away from you in your mind. It's like being up the hills and mistaking a gentle wee slope for a sheer drop. Moderately left ideas don't just seem off, they seem outright opposed to you. This isn't some fringe theory either. Back in the 1960s, psychologists Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland nailed it down in social judgment theory, and studies since then, like those crunching decades of election data, show it's twice as powerful as its flip side. The result? Your worldview shrinks into a funhouse mirror where the centre ground looks like enemy territory.

Now, layer on the 'hostile media effect', (have you heard of that?), and things get even spicier. This one's a belter, no matter how neutral or balanced a news story is, if you're a die hard partisan, you'll swear it's stacked against you. Left wingers see GB News as Satan's newsletter, right, but flip it about and even BBC coverage on climate policy might come off as climate-denier code to the ultra-committed. Research from the American National Election Studies backs this up. People routinely exaggerate how far apart opponents are, turning a nudge to the right of them into a full on fascist march. For extremists, it's not just opponents that suffer, it's anybody that doesn't chant the exact same slogan. That contrast lens warps the media landscape so much that "friendly" sources end up in the crosshairs too.

And here's where it gets a bit tragic, especially for those far left firebrands that can't abide a lukewarm latte of liberalism. Imagine building your entire social world around unyielding purity tests. Your mate suggests voting for a candidate who's pro-worker but heaven forbid, not anti-capitalist enough? Boom, they're a Trojan horse for the bourgeoisie. Suddenly, your circle of mates isn't a bustling pub on a Friday night any more, it's a dimly lit corner booth with three people that all own the same dog eared copy of Das Kapital. It's like they're auditioning everybody for a role in their personal revolution, and most folk don't pass go. The irony bites hard, because in their quest to purify the world, they end up isolating themselves in an echo chamber so tight it's near enough soundproof. Who needs a broad coalition when you've got ideological trench warfare with your own side? 

Take the Palestinian-Israeli lens for example, a far left activist might spot a call for a two state solution in a Guardian op ed, something that acknowledges rights for Palestinians while also giving a nod to Israel's right to exist. But through their contrast tinted glasses, it's not a pragmatic olive branch, it's a colonial sellout, propping up the occupation with one hand tied behind its back. Suddenly, that writer who's spent years lambasting settlements is a hasbara shill. And before you know it, another ally vanishes into the ether, leaving our hero to debate the finer points of intifada tactics with the ghosts in their X feed. It's a masterclass in self sabotage, turning shades of grey into stark battle lines that leave you shouting at shadows.

Or consider the open borders and mass migration merry go round. Here's a moderate lefty voice, perhaps from a think tank, arguing for humane asylum reforms and pathways to citizenship for migrants fleeing peril. Sensible stuff, right? Not if you're viewing it through the ultra left prism, where anything short of immediate global abolition of borders is just veiled nativism in sheep's clothing. "Pathways? That's code for detention camps!" they'll shout, branding the reformer a closet border hawk. Cue the unfollow frenzy, and there goes another pals act down the pan. In chasing the dream of unfettered movement, they end up fencing off their own friendships, one misplaced nuance at a time. It's almost poetic, how the pursuit of boundless solidarity shrinks your actual social horizons to a no entry zone.

In the end, this contrast fuelled tunnel vision isn't just amusingly absurd, it's a real barrier to getting anything done. Politics thrives on compromise, but when your brain's busy redrawing the battle lines closer to home, it's no wonder we all feel more divided than ever. The good news? Awareness is half the battle. Next time you catch yourself eyeing that "traitor" op ed from your own camp, pause and ask yourself if it's really the enemy or just not extreme enough for your own tastes. A wee bit of self reflection might just widen that social circle, one grudging handshake at a time. 

After all, in the grand spectrum of things, there's room for more than one shade of red. Or is there? If you're parsing every comma here as a covert conservative Zionist plot to sow doubt in the faithful, hats off, you've nailed the hostile media effect on a blog post about it. Me, I'm just a neutral observer with a fondness for funhouse mirrors. But don't let that stop you from wondering if even this disclaimer is the real psy op. Sweet dreams, comrade, and Shabbat Shalom.