I think they mean to say that this use of the word paradigm originated with him.

paradigm (n.) late 15c., "an example, a model," from Late Latin paradigma "pattern, example," especially in grammar, from Greek paradeigma "pattern, model; precedent, example," from paradeiknynai "exhibit, represent," literally "show side by side," from para- "beside" (see para- (1)) + deiknynai "to show" (cognate with Latin dicere "to show;" from PIE root *deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly"). In 20c. it began to be used in the more specific philosophical sense of "logical or conceptual structure serving as a form of thought within a given area of experience," especially in Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962). Related: Paradigmatic; paradigmatical.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/paradigm

I see. In psychodynamic language this would fall under defenses, such as splitting and denial. I want to deny negative qualities in myself, or aggression for example, so I do something unconsciously to make myself think I’m just good and for instance other people are bad (non vegetarians). Defenses almost always lead to problems. So this isn’t really new.

I don't understand what they mean. All people are conflicted and self contradicting. So in that sense there is always fragmentation. If they don't mean that, then what?

She didn't say you think these people are wrong, but politics does. According to her. I have no clue what she's on about though. I've never felt like politics were telling me who to be attracted to and if they were I wouldn't care.

I agree. In which the whole point of the medium is also entirely different, and you get the support and relating irl. I have to say that reddit can be extraordinarily cruel and rude as well though. A bit like Twitter. The more anonymous people can be, the more uninhibited they are, which also means unthinking vileness unfortunately.

Surely you see that many of our ideas of better or worse are constructions? For the person seeking enlightenment going into refuge and isolation is better. For someone else it might be getting more friends. For another it's faith in God.

Let's say there's an alien species looking at us and considering us detrimental to the planet and potentially our solar system. Let's say they look at our self destruction with joy and a sense of justice. Does that possibility not prove there is no objective bad?

That doesn't follow logically at all. For instance, it is mostly bad from the perspective of said subject, but maybe not from a different perspective. Also, suffering can be an important signal to ourselves that something is amiss. So you might say "but then we try to solve the suffering so then we prove that suffering is bad because we want to get rid of it". Well, you could argue that, but you could also argue that without the suffering we wouldn't change for the better. The suffering is a means to an end. Without it we wouldn't know there was some kind of (subjective) problem.

But it's not objectively bad it's subjectively bad

And taoism and Buddhism