> I don't understand this "us against them" mentality because it leaves no room for nuance. IMO it is just a rhetorical trick / social manipulation tool. On a

> I don't understand this "us against them" mentality because it leaves no room for nuance. IMO it is just a rhetorical trick / social manipulation tool. On a landscape of political positions, there is a status quo area X. Who is against status quo is in non-X (complement to X). There is a side who wants to change status quo to position Y, which is a small and specific subset of non-X (which is necessary, because 'away from X' is not consistent position / direction). The fair approach would be to negotiate with other members of non-X (and perhaps some border members of X) for political support and get some compromise position with majority support. The "us against them" is just a way to manipulate (by guilt trip or other ways) members of non-X to support position Y, without giving any consessions for them and their positions. It may help for that goal if position Y is not explicitly stated, and the side is just marked / marketed as non-X.