I'm not much interested in these discussions of tribalism and this article doesn't resonate with me at all. I don't see or understand the world in terms of tribalism and this article seems to push conflicts that I don't see any tribal influence into the tribalism box. Perhaps among the uneducated voters act out of tribalism but it doesn't seem to have nearly the amount of influence that all this discussion signifies.

There seems to be a lot of stupid coming out of the Trump world and calling it out isn't tribal imo. While I reject the idea that they're all racist and that it's useless to attempt to reach out to any Trump voter I think it's undeniable that there's a significant amount of racism among Trump's base and that's at least a significant minority of the republican party. An honest discussion of that reality isn't toxic.

For me the partisanship isn't about tribalism but a very real difference in policy. Take abortion. The position of the vast majority of democrats is that it should be legal. While there are some differences in the exact degree of legality legality is the standard. The vase majority of republicans want abortion to be banned. For some with only rare exceptions for rape and incest. It's not tribalism that drives the division. These are positions so at odds with each other there is no room for compromise.

Or let us consider climate change and the environment. The democratic position is to increase the amount of renewable energy sources and the other side wants to increase the use of carbon producing energy sources. Trump has gone so far as to propose using the excuse of national security to force power plants to continue using coal rather than switching to natural gas. That's not tribalism. That's a very real and fundamentally opposed policy difference.

Your link includes atheism and theism on it's list of tribal conflicts. I fail to see how that's a tribal conflict in todays world. The new atheist movement is simply attempting to have a 21st century conversation about these mostly first century schools of thought. The power of Christianity in America has lessened and formerly taboo subjects can more openly be discussed. The internet has made these conversation available to the masses were they used to be more restricted to the elite. Therefore the atheist movement has gotten more publicity and popularity.

It's true that Hitchens can be insulting but that's just his schtick. He plays the rogue with witty jabs. But by far most of his discussion is clear rational arguments to support his views. Harris, by design I'm sure, is as unemotional as possible and limits his speech to solely rational arguments. He simply refuses to react to any jab from the other side. I just don't see how any of these debates and discussion on religion v atheism is an example of tribalism and especially toxic tribalism.

I've weighed in on the subject here because rmrd has pushed it and embraced tribalism as a positive force when I see it as a negative. But I don't really see tribalism as a determinative force in most of these conflicts.

As Yogi Berra said, "You can look it up."