An ideological square of emphasis and de-emphasis structures group discourse

Evidence

In other words, with the many subtle structures of meanings, form, and action, racist discourse generally emphasizes Our good things and Their bad things, and de-emphasizes (mitigates, hides) Our bad things and Their good things. This general “ideological” square not only applies to racist domination but in general to ingroupoutgroup polarization in social practices, discourse, and thought. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1064

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Discourse gives ingroup problems less detail than outgroup ones; Abstract language about groups encodes subtle biases favoring ingroups over outgroups — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1288; Strong affective polarization across groups erodes democratic discourse — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 734 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Discourse gives ingroup problems less detail than outgroup ones #exemplifies (0.85)
• Abstract language about groups encodes subtle biases favoring ingroups over outgroups #exemplifies (0.82) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1288
• Political expression is switched on and off by group context rather than individual belief #expands (0.78) — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 97
• Strong affective polarization across groups erodes democratic discourse #qualifies (0.75) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 734