Sorry, good point. What I meant initially was, "I thought the promise of social media was to drive down polarization." I think I'm not the only one who doesn't know anyone with the alternative view.
Did I read any pro-Brexit arguments? Hmm. I read a fair amount of fairly wonkish economic arguments--as with trade barriers, however, it seems that most professional policy experts (and most economists) are generally pro-free-trade and don't have much to say on this being good policy.
Again, maybe my perception is a bit off, but I see this as similar to climate change arguments: the science (especially when it comes to macroeconomics) is imperfect, but if you restrict yourself to those with some academic qualifications, you see a very different picture than if you read political opinion.
When Bernie competed against Clinton, I don't think there was anyone pro Clinton. Stuff happened.
You could've gone to /r/the_donald. Beside the memes, there were many threads for each podesta email-leak, linking specific comments/sentences for deplorable dnc doings.
You're doing exactly what both sides have been complaining about: vilifying the other side and making assumptions. And you're doing it to someone replying to you in good faith.
I actually did spend a lot of time passively reading r/the_donald, but as you say, it seemed more into the other side (email leaks, etc) than into Trump's policy proposals or similar.
