The virus of polarization: online debates about Covid-19 in Germany

Figures & data

Table 1. Compatibility of ideological and affective polarization with three models of democracy.

	Ideological polarization	Affective polarization
		Hostile outgroup identities (Stage 1)	Political intolerance (Stage 2)
Deliberative democracy	Largely incompatible	Incompatible	Incompatible
Pluralist democracy	Largely compatible	Partly compatible	Incompatible
Agonistic democracy	Compatible	Compatible	Incompatible

Table 2. Affective polarization on the Facebook platforms of RT and SZ.

	Russia Today Germany (RT)	Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ)
Hostile outgroup identities (Stage 1)	­ Discourse dominated by an anti-establishment ideology and conspiracy beliefs; few episodes of disagreement ­ Stigmatization and exclusion of dissenting opinions ­ Frequent ideologically extreme statements; general agreement with such statements by others	­ Discourse dominated by a science-based rationalist ideology; regular episodes of disagreement ­ Stigmatization and exclusion of dissenting opinions ­ Few ideologically extreme statements; if they were expressed, other users seriously objected
Political intolerance towards the other camp (Stage 2)	­ Extremely negative picture of the other side, with strong hostile feelings expressed through insults and threats ­ Conviction that the government is involved in sinister machinations, which the opposing side fails to notice ­ Calls for radical revolutionary action to counter the government’s conspiracies	­ Opposing side denounced as stupid believers in conspiracy theorists ­ Use of arrogance, ridicule and provocation vis-à-vis opponents ­ Failure to accept the positions of the opposing side as morally legitimate