Thanks for sharing your perspective with me, I really enjoyed reading it!

You raised an interesting point, the polarising of r/AITA, and its something I've noticed a few times... I now have a theory:

Personal experiences are far more likely to move towards emotional extremes.

Emotionally-invested people reach points of 'black and white morality' as they get larger, labelled as moral or immoral based on each viewer's personal perspective.

I'm not saying our emotions are bad - if anything, many people are martyrs from their own emotional neglect - rather that many of us have not learned how to feel emotion authentically without treating them as objective judgements that justify action. (eg: this happened, I feel angry, therefore you wronged me, therefore I can defend myself, etc)

Humans are empathetic, which is truly wonderful. But we have two types of empathy:

• affective empathy is our brain's mirror neurons, feeling emotion in response to others' visible feelings. I see you feel sad, so I feel sad for you. It's innate.
• cognitive empathy is a social skill, one facet of emotional maturity. I recognise that if this were to happen, then somebody in your situation may feel sad, and I understand why. It's learned, primarily in childhood as modelled by our parents.

So, back to your example of r/AITA - the NAH and ESH ratings are likely only being used by those engaging with cognitive empathy, (hopefully) recognising possible biases and advocating for communication that will satisfy both, as if they are a third party observing.

But for those who engage with their affective empathy, they project themselves into the story - if the story is evocative, they'll readily side with OP. If the other's experience angers them, they'll readily call them out. They're not here to offer perspective - only judgement.

So what does that mean for communities that want to prevent polarisation?

Haha, fuck if I know, I mostly just find the topic interesting and enjoy having a space to explore it. But I have a couple ideas, and would be curious to hear yours?

On Reddit, we see this black/white emotional judgement in upvotes/downvotes - though they are intended for whether a comment contributes something, they're often used to define whether a comment is moral according to the voter's values. Without downvotes, a comment that is bigoted can still be blocked/reported; but with them, a comment that says I think Witcher 3 is boring because- can be buried.

r/AITA also encourages a degree of absolutism by boiling down rulings to three letters, and groupthink by drawing an ultimate conclusion based on which one is most popular rather than presenting a table graph. Users can feel just and righteous - standing up for victim OP, or standing up for their victim.

So I don't know if the problem is preventable, it's a humanities issue; but I would consider some of the following:

• no downvoting system. It's rarely used in good faith; comments that don't contribute that be reported instead. Comments that are engaging will still rise over comments that are not.
• active diverse moderation. Hopefully with a diverse enough mod team it will slow homogenisation. eg: a mod that likes children will push for rules that discourage/ban anti-child language; a mod that doesn't like children will push for a platform that encourages/allows those struggling to vent. Together they may find guidelines that emotionally validates struggle without perpetuating hate.
• smaller communities, like you said. Subs like r/childfree are trying to be resource communities (the list of doctors, advice, etc) and have good reason for being large, but social communities are probably better off kept smaller. eg: if they made a r/childfreesupport for venting and emotional validation.

Also, for those of you who read to the end, I really appreciate it. I know I ramble about stuff I find interesting, and despite editing out a bunch of waffle I know this is still really long. Would enjoy reading your equally long responses lol