Even the independent or non-profit media sources that have a lot of credibility and seem generally pretty chill will fall back on this every now and again.

You see it anytime you hear people talking about division or hyper partisanship "on the rise" in that clinical, abstract way that sounds objective. It's always in a discussion about the current state of "discourse", and it's nearly always remarked on like the story is the spike in "disagreements", and not about what the disagreements are actually about.This pervasive idea that somehow people being upset about the current state of affairs and the rise of actual fascism is some kind of aberration.

Like "Gee, people sure are arguing a lot these days. Boy howdy, they're sure a feisty bunch, aren't they?" Women literally had their right to an abortion taken away from them, we had armed fascists storming our God damn capital on the word of a President and current candidate, we had thousands die to a preventable illness because of rampant misinformation and right wing individualist propaganda, and still you hear this tone that people being really angry right now is weird.

Fucking Kurkusagst, a channel I have a lot of respect for, just the other day dropped a video blaming social media on the mounting political and social divisions in our country, and implying all will be well if we just stopped using big media platforms. Social media is definitely part of it, but anyone seriously acting like it's the primary reason people are fucking pissed right now has to be some well-off straight white man, because the rest of us have some pretty damn good reasons to be pissed. I don't need Twitter or Reddit or Facebook to make me angry, I just need to be paying the fuck attention.

It's insulting to every women, every LGBT person, every non-white person, and every single person struggling to make a living right now to imply "social media is just getting us riled up."

Spoilers: We're already slave-lite. Owned by our landlords, credit bureaus, state and federal government (taxes) and education finance system (immutable loans).

It's nowhere near as bad as real slavery was. The goal is to make us earn as much as possible for those that own us though under the guise of "freedom". Freedom is dictatorship. Freedom is being controlled. Freedom is doing the right thing as prescribed by those in power and their interpretation of law which always seems to side with those who already have the money and power.

Ok, except the US right literally has an out in the open plan for implementing a fascist dictatorship called project 2025. You can go read it yourself. This is not some small wing of the party. Basically every single Congressperson and senator is backing this.

The other side wants to brainwash children into mutilating their own bodies.

"And it's our job to do that when we circumcise them!"

killing babies Most non-biased description of abortion ever.
/s

The OP is a bit exaggerated, you're right, but it not too far from the truth: Trump, the president that started a coup, is running for president stating only he can fix the problems the US has which would include removing all the leftist vermin (extremely fascist). White supremacists and nazis don't make up a majority of his support, but most if not all of them do support him (bringing back nazis and bringing back "slavery" in the form of giving power to white supremacists). Trump likes to use dog whistle showing his support for them, while also not rebuking those same groups of people. The crazy things the far left wants to do is... help trans kids using procedures backed by science and supported by most major countries(and to clarify, by procedures I mean non-permanent hormone treatment, rather than permanent surgeries). We're basically talking about the right trying to prop up a treasonous authoritarian, who utilizes the help of Nazis, white supremacists and religious zealots who want to take away women's rights vs the left that is trying to help kids.

Except the right is actively pushing to make women property, working with nazis and nazi sympathizers, undermining the education system, undermining social services, undermining workers rights, ect.

The (by comparison) left certainly doesn't have clean hands, but they aren't brainwashing or mutilating children.

And it's not like the "just want to stop killing babies". If that were the case they would be supporting social services and social safety nets for families. They would show SOME kind of care for the children AFTER they're born too.

It isn't biased, it's just accurately describing reality.

Then all you have to do is point at scientific evidence showing no children is mutilating their body, nor "babies are being murdered". Right wingers reject empirical evidence. Your example holds no water at all and completely misrepresent what even the left advocates for. And keep in mind that abortion is even popular on both sides of the aisle.

The challenge is, especially in the US, the moderate side of the right arguments don't seem to be made anywhere. All the party is pushing are the extreme views so it does appear to be exactly this in the media (which is where the majority of people are influenced by regardless of it's right or not).

I think it's a mistake to call them moderates. The "moderates" in the US have gone to great lengths to brand themselves this way, but really they are neoliberals who have bought into every aspect of conservatism except maybe the most depraved social views from the alt right, which they excuse as "just an opinion". They love to play both sides and act like they have some moral/intellectual high ground because they consider "both sides" when really they are already waist deep into right-wing ideology.

The media always wants two people with diametrically opposed ideas and opinions in their tv debates. Like with climate change debates. Instead of inviting 2 people of the 99% of scientist who generally agree about human made climate change but disagree on the details they invite the disgraced 1% “scientist” with a fringe opinion who’s clearly in the pocket of big oil or a professor who isn’t even a climate expert.

Then make that "choice" a choice for Ranked Choice Voting at the local level. The Constitution allows for this option. The founding fathers didn't have access to the math that proves FPTP is the worst possible voting system, despite England using FPTP since the middle ages, or as much as 600-800 years at that point.