CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[Dogmaphobe]

The term was coined by a horrified liberal Muslim Brit and advanced by other horrified liberals. Real liberals, actual liberals.

And the reaction it gets here certainly is telling.

And regarding being disrespectful, the term "Regressive Left", even though it was coined by a liberal, is the closest I come to any kind of name-calling or personal insults here. Compared to what I see in virtually every thread outside the CDZ, I'm pretty comfy with my level of respect for others, whether I receive it in return or not.

Again, his "horror" is that the rest of the liberal movement doesn't sign on to Islamophobia... or his self-loathing.

So essentially, you had an argument within liberalism as to whether or not we'd go down the rabbit hole of insane Islamophobia, and some liberals said, "Um, no, we have a problem with that part of the world because of our policies, not their religion."

But to segue into why liberals should beware the lure of "Bipartisanship" and "Compromise", I give you the Iraq War, where a bunch of liberals gave George W. Bush a go ahead to invade Iraq as long as he promised a bunch of things he didn't actually do.

And as the Iraq War turned into a fiasco, those Republicans dragged out their talking point list of every Democrat who ever said "Saddam is a bad man!"

You say "we" quite a bit when you reference liberals. Why do you do that?

You are using the wrong term to describe your politics, of course, but your acknowledgement that you are part of a hive mind only confirms Mac's points for him.

He does this all the time. Pretty much every day. I make a point, he illustrates it.

Weird, but you get used to it.
.

It's almost like you are Edger Bergan some times, isn't it?

 

[Mac1958]

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

It appears, Mac1958, the affliction, if it be that and not sloth, ignorance and/or insipidity, appears to extend to the level of simply not checking the most basic aspects of veracity in (or absent from) statements one is of a mind to make. To wit:

• CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu.
• How JPMorgan Will Spend a Big Chunk of Its Tax Windfall
• How to Negotiate with Tyrannical Regimes

For my part, I don't care how partisan one is of a mind to be, there is, IMO, simply no exculpating that sort of thing, mosty especially not at as basic a level as is illustrated in the post to which I linked.

As I've stated before on this line of discussion, it's clear you are of a mind to accord to partisanship to nature of vitiative absolution given to insanity, that is, to make it a form of insanity, or, in legal parlance, "a disease of the mind." [1] Well, I simply cannot cotton to that proposition because one's choice to be unrelentingly loyal to a political party, thus to exhibit servile partisanship, is a choice one makes. Nobody is born Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. AFAIK, there is no as yet identified and established basis for thinking that one's choosing a party and hewing to it and its leaders happens due to the presence of an epigenetic or physiological "imbalance."

I can somewhat "get with" the notion of equating (psychologically) partisanship with an affliction such as alcoholism, but not with or as a form of insanity. Just as we hold alcoholics accountable for their deeds/words committed/spoken while under the influence of alcohol, so too are partisans rightly held responsible for their deeds/remarks while "under the influence" of their chosen political party.


Notes:

1. American Law Institute's test for insanity (see also: Insanity defense): A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
   
2. An illustrative example of one dimension in which being afflicted by alcohol/alcoholism differs from having a "disease of the mind."
   • In Roberts v. State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated its position on chronic alcoholism as an independent affirmative defense to a murder charge. The defendant, Richard Roberts, had broken into a house and shot to death its inhabitant. During the 24 hours prior to the killing, Roberts had consumed five large glasses of beer, two to four bottles of beer, a pint of brandy and another 16 to 29 drinks containing brandy. To the charges of first degree murder and burglary, Roberts pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty by reason of chronic alcoholism. The trial court found that Roberts was not intoxicated at the time of the shooting and adjudged him guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed and, in dicta, discussed the limited circumstances under which chronic alcoholism might be interposed as a defense to criminal liability.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity, but I have no doubt that it distorts perceptions and thought processes. And it has to be powerful to infect people who are clearly intelligent. We may have had this discussion before, but this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Via intellectual isolation (choosing to expose oneself to only certain inputs, such as external information, similar minds, kindred spirits and internal thoughts) and pure repetition, the mind can be conditioned over time to believe some pretty amazing things. That's the foundation of what I think is at work here.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The term was coined by a horrified liberal Muslim Brit and advanced by other horrified liberals. Real liberals, actual liberals.

And the reaction it gets here certainly is telling.

And regarding being disrespectful, the term "Regressive Left", even though it was coined by a liberal, is the closest I come to any kind of name-calling or personal insults here. Compared to what I see in virtually every thread outside the CDZ, I'm pretty comfy with my level of respect for others, whether I receive it in return or not.

Again, his "horror" is that the rest of the liberal movement doesn't sign on to Islamophobia... or his self-loathing.

So essentially, you had an argument within liberalism as to whether or not we'd go down the rabbit hole of insane Islamophobia, and some liberals said, "Um, no, we have a problem with that part of the world because of our policies, not their religion."

But to segue into why liberals should beware the lure of "Bipartisanship" and "Compromise", I give you the Iraq War, where a bunch of liberals gave George W. Bush a go ahead to invade Iraq as long as he promised a bunch of things he didn't actually do.

And as the Iraq War turned into a fiasco, those Republicans dragged out their talking point list of every Democrat who ever said "Saddam is a bad man!"

And I have my own little Mortimer Snurd!
.

You say "we" quite a bit when you reference liberals. Why do you do that?

You are using the wrong term to describe your politics, of course, but your acknowledgement that you are part of a hive mind only confirms Mac's points for him.

He does this all the time. Pretty much every day. I make a point, he illustrates it.

Weird, but you get used to it.
.

It's almost like you are Edger Bergan some times, isn't it?

And I have my own little Mortimer Snurd!
.

 

[Pogo]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

Well you got a conflict right from the start then, since "liberal" and "authoritarian" are each other's opposites.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Do I have to do something about it to not support it?

I don’t have a personal relationship with any Muslims who adhere to those weird tenets.

What do you think I should be doing?

As to what you should be doing, I would say that you should learn what Islam actually entails, look into the laws of various Islamic countries, pour through reliable opinion polls that reveal what Muslims actually believe and how many believe it, ignore anecdotal evidence based upon extremely limited personal contact, and start paying attention to when happens in countries as their Islamic population increases.

There is an inverse relationship in the west between people's knowledge of Islam and their propensity towards defending it.

 

[Mac1958]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

Well you got a conflict right from the start then, since "liberal" and "authoritarian" are each other's opposites.

Regressives are not liberal. They claim to be, and they share some qualities, but they are in fact illiberal leftist authoritarians.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

Well you got a conflict right from the start then, since "liberal" and "authoritarian" are each other's opposites.

......and that is why I call leftists leftist instead of liberal.

Capiche?

 

[Pogo]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

The liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term based on their aggressive willingness to defend and spin for the most regressive religion on the planet. But the liberals who have advanced the term expanded it to include other illiberal, authoritarian, regressive behaviors, primarily the group's efforts to shut down opposing speech.

It's a fit that works, in my view.
.

When it gets right down to it, the entire process is simply an exercise in group identity. We no longer have tribes in the west based upon blood as they do in some other parts of the world, so people have substituted shared belief. Once people decide on their tribe based upon belief, a simple process of social conditioning ensues that is downright Pavlovian. People are rewarded by their peeps in the form of approval if they say one thing and disapproval if they say another. In the case of regressives, if they dare to mention the illiberal practices of certain people, the disapproval takes the form of name calling. People are called bigots and racists and Islamophobes and xenophobes and any of a number of other terms when they support actual liberal vales, and so in order to avoid these accusations, they just join the crowd.

I see many, many similarities between the partisans on both ends (and I point that out regularly), but also many differences.

Another of my little "theories" is that the Left has been politically active for a significantly longer period, about 55 years now, the early 60's. The Right became more active and vocal with the rise of Limbaugh, but it was the advent of the Tea Party after CNBC's Rick Santelli did his trading floor rant in 2009 that put their political activity into hyperdrive.

So because the two sides have such disparate experience at this, their feel is different to me. The Left is far more experienced at protesting and gathering, while the Right is still trying to find its footing. The Left has all the talking points down, the Right is still mired in echo chamber sloganeering.

The similarities, though, are obvious: They both regularly engage in personal insults, name-calling, hypocrisy, hyperbole, distortion, denial, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies, because "winning" is all that matters to them. I hold out little hope that many of them will ever be involved in honest, constructive communication.
.

You actually believe "the left" and "the right" have only been around since the '60s and the '90s?

Is the earth 55 years old then?

The approach of either may have evolved 30/50 years ago, but trust me, they've both been here far longer than that.

 

[Pogo]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

Well you got a conflict right from the start then, since "liberal" and "authoritarian" are each other's opposites.

Regressives are not liberal. They claim to be, and they share some qualities, but they are in fact illiberal leftist authoritarians.
.

That combination of adjectives would work. The poster I addressed wanted to plug two opposites into each other. That's how you blow things up.

 

[Pete7469]

To steal from a post of mine on another thread: I maintain, and I'm more sure of this than ever, that it is an affliction that literally distorts perceptions and thought processes. I came to the conclusion that it is an affliction because it clearly infects people who are otherwise perfectly intelligent.

And if I'm right, then the afflicted are actually being perfectly honest and sincere in what they say. Those are the thoughts that are going through their minds, it's not an act. Like an old woman at a revival meeting or a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, they're not thinking rationally, but they are perfectly sincere. Hence the passion. Makes it tougher.

Interesting piece here: How Partisan Politics Narrows Your Thinking

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

We may never be able to convince solidly loyal party members to have an open mind. But the other 80% of us need to think for ourselves.
.

Mac, you've posted a few threads about partisanship and what you seem to think is some new inability between the parties to "compromise" and accomplish things. You know I am anti collectivist if anything. I condemn republicrats and "conservatives" alike. I absolutely despise the democrooks however and as far as I'm concerned they're motivated by marxist dogma and their intentions are nefarious.

Explain to me one democrook policy agenda item that would benefit more people than harm and what it would actually fix.

Then keep in mind how democrooks historically behave after certain "compromises" have been met, because we have seen the consequences of trusting them to produce results.

We have witnessed how these people behave at the grass roots level on the streets. The occutards literally left a biological hazard behind. We've witnessed antifa riots, violence, vandalism and serious property damage when liberals "peacefully demonstrate" or counter protest "Right Wing Uprisings"

When I hear the radio the day after Trump's SOTU, which I didn't watch, and hear about the actions and responses of democrook lawmakers along with sound bytes from idiotic TV caricatures of soviet "journalists" it blows my mind that people that stupid have been allowed to occupy elected offices or put in front of TV cameras to read stupid shit of that degree back into a camera. How do you find "common ground" with "people" who are either that stupid, or that deep into their treasonous criminal endeavors?

Sure the republicrats are stupid too, but where can anyone "compromise" with the DNC as it is? Why would you give them an inch?

I was not a Trump supporter if you recall. He has grown on me a whole lot in just one year.

 

[frigidweirdo]

To steal from a post of mine on another thread: I maintain, and I'm more sure of this than ever, that it is an affliction that literally distorts perceptions and thought processes. I came to the conclusion that it is an affliction because it clearly infects people who are otherwise perfectly intelligent.

And if I'm right, then the afflicted are actually being perfectly honest and sincere in what they say. Those are the thoughts that are going through their minds, it's not an act. Like an old woman at a revival meeting or a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, they're not thinking rationally, but they are perfectly sincere. Hence the passion. Makes it tougher.

Interesting piece here: How Partisan Politics Narrows Your Thinking

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

We may never be able to convince solidly loyal party members to have an open mind. But the other 80% of us need to think for ourselves.
.

Oh, the people on here who can't see the reality of a situation who will argue that black is white and then the next day argue that black is black on another topic, is rather numerous.

 

[Votto]

Logic certainly is lacking in partisans of either party. Clearly both parties are very much alike, yet the partisans can't see it. The pols of either party like to scream about their differences purely to dupe Americans, but at the end of the day, both parties are all about enriching and empowering themselves. They are criminals after all.

Sigh.

Here's the real problem with politicians.

They give us what we want.

We want government to do all this stuff for us, but we don't want to pay for it.

And sadly, politicians on both sides indulge us.

It really doesn't get more complicated than that.

Now, to a degree, do both sides find fringe issues like "Men in dresses" to get us all upset about so they don't have to have the hard conversation about how we keep paying for Granny's Social Security when she's in her late 80 when the assumptions were she'd die by the time she was 72?

Yes. Yes, they do.

And we let them do it, even the moderates.

They give us what we want?

Why then do they have to lie to us 24/7 with impunity?

 

[Pogo]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

The liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term based on their aggressive willingness to defend and spin for the most regressive religion on the planet. But the liberals who have advanced the term expanded it to include other illiberal, authoritarian, regressive behaviors, primarily the group's efforts to shut down opposing speech.

It's a fit that works, in my view.
.

When it gets right down to it, the entire process is simply an exercise in group identity. We no longer have tribes in the west based upon blood as they do in some other parts of the world, so people have substituted shared belief. Once people decide on their tribe based upon belief, a simple process of social conditioning ensues that is downright Pavlovian. People are rewarded by their peeps in the form of approval if they say one thing and disapproval if they say another. In the case of regressives, if they dare to mention the illiberal practices of certain people, the disapproval takes the form of name calling. People are called bigots and racists and Islamophobes and xenophobes and any of a number of other terms when they support actual liberal vales, and so in order to avoid these accusations, they just join the crowd.

Tribalism is an effective descriptor yes. It's insidious.

But equally insidious is the "designated tribalism", for lack of a better term, where anyone who dares take issue with Tribe A is automatically ass-umed to therefore be of Tribe B, as if no other alternative exists. We get this around here in every thread, every day.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I use the term regressive to describe those politically correct authoritarians who defend archly illiberal cultural practices, attitudes and behaviors as long as they arise from certain protected groups. Identity politics demands the suspension of actual liberal ideals in favor of a form of group think that regards these ideals as anathema.

These are fundamentalist systems of thought that demand conformity rather than any desire to foster liberal attitudes.

Well you got a conflict right from the start then, since "liberal" and "authoritarian" are each other's opposites.

Regressives are not liberal. They claim to be, and they share some qualities, but they are in fact illiberal leftist authoritarians.
.

That combination of adjectives would work. The poster I addressed wanted to plug two opposites into each other. That's how you blow things up.

No, I didn't. You simply conflated the two terms while attributing such sloppy thinking to me.

I never said liberals were authoritarian. You mis-characterized me either willfully or by lack of reading comprehension. If the former, you are acting dishonestly, and if the latter, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help teach you the intricacies of the English language in such a way as to assist you with your abilities when it comes to comprehension.

 

[Mac1958]

To steal from a post of mine on another thread: I maintain, and I'm more sure of this than ever, that it is an affliction that literally distorts perceptions and thought processes. I came to the conclusion that it is an affliction because it clearly infects people who are otherwise perfectly intelligent.

And if I'm right, then the afflicted are actually being perfectly honest and sincere in what they say. Those are the thoughts that are going through their minds, it's not an act. Like an old woman at a revival meeting or a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, they're not thinking rationally, but they are perfectly sincere. Hence the passion. Makes it tougher.

Interesting piece here: How Partisan Politics Narrows Your Thinking

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

We may never be able to convince solidly loyal party members to have an open mind. But the other 80% of us need to think for ourselves.
.

Mac, you've posted a few threads about partisanship and what you seem to think is some new inability between the parties to "compromise" and accomplish things. You know I am anti collectivist if anything. I condemn republicrats and "conservatives" alike. I absolutely despise the democrooks however and as far as I'm concerned they're motivated by marxist dogma and their intentions are nefarious.

Explain to me one democrook policy agenda item that would benefit more people than harm and what it would actually fix.

Then keep in mind how democrooks historically behave after certain "compromises" have been met, because we have seen the consequences of trusting them to produce results.

We have witnessed how these people behave at the grass roots level on the streets. The occutards literally left a biological hazard behind. We've witnessed antifa riots, violence, vandalism and serious property damage when liberals "peacefully demonstrate" or counter protest "Right Wing Uprisings"

When I hear the radio the day after Trump's SOTU, which I didn't watch, and hear about the actions and responses of democrook lawmakers along with sound bytes from idiotic TV caricatures of soviet "journalists" it blows my mind that people that stupid have been allowed to occupy elected offices or put in front of TV cameras to read stupid shit of that degree back into a camera. How do you find "common ground" with "people" who are either that stupid, or that deep into their treasonous criminal endeavors?

Sure the republicrats are stupid too, but where can anyone "compromise" with the DNC as it is? Why would you give them an inch?

I was not a Trump supporter if you recall. He has grown on me a whole lot in just one year.

Finding common ground isn't easy. Sometimes it means you just aren't going to get what you want. Sometimes it doesn't mean meeting in "the middle". Sometimes you just lose.

But there is something absolutely critical that partisans are missing when they refuse to communicate and cooperate: Maybe the final answer won't come from you, or from me; sometimes it comes from synergy, from creativity. Humans are pretty good at being creative, if we can just get rid of our egos for a few minutes.

Maybe the "other guy" will get his way. And maybe things will work out great anyway. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you were right.

It's okay to admit that now and then.
.

 

[Pete7469]

Finding common ground isn't easy. Sometimes it means you just aren't going to get what you want. Sometimes it doesn't mean meeting in "the middle". Sometimes you just lose.

But there is something absolutely critical that partisans are missing when they refuse to communicate and cooperate: Maybe the final answer won't come from you, or from me; sometimes it comes from synergy, from creativity. Humans are pretty good at being creative, if we can just get rid of our egos for a few minutes.

Maybe the "other guy" will get his way. And maybe things will work out great anyway. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you were right.

It's okay to admit that now and then.
.

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The democrook agenda is harmful, deliberately.

You know it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

To steal from a post of mine on another thread: I maintain, and I'm more sure of this than ever, that it is an affliction that literally distorts perceptions and thought processes. I came to the conclusion that it is an affliction because it clearly infects people who are otherwise perfectly intelligent.

And if I'm right, then the afflicted are actually being perfectly honest and sincere in what they say. Those are the thoughts that are going through their minds, it's not an act. Like an old woman at a revival meeting or a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, they're not thinking rationally, but they are perfectly sincere. Hence the passion. Makes it tougher.

Interesting piece here: How Partisan Politics Narrows Your Thinking

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

We may never be able to convince solidly loyal party members to have an open mind. But the other 80% of us need to think for ourselves.
.

It doesnt...not to me.

 

[Mac1958]

Finding common ground isn't easy. Sometimes it means you just aren't going to get what you want. Sometimes it doesn't mean meeting in "the middle". Sometimes you just lose.

But there is something absolutely critical that partisans are missing when they refuse to communicate and cooperate: Maybe the final answer won't come from you, or from me; sometimes it comes from synergy, from creativity. Humans are pretty good at being creative, if we can just get rid of our egos for a few minutes.

Maybe the "other guy" will get his way. And maybe things will work out great anyway. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you were right.

It's okay to admit that now and then.
.

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The democrook agenda is harmful, deliberately.

You know it.

Well, for what it's worth, I'd guess the other side feels the same way.
.

 

[Pogo]

Finding common ground isn't easy. Sometimes it means you just aren't going to get what you want. Sometimes it doesn't mean meeting in "the middle". Sometimes you just lose.

But there is something absolutely critical that partisans are missing when they refuse to communicate and cooperate: Maybe the final answer won't come from you, or from me; sometimes it comes from synergy, from creativity. Humans are pretty good at being creative, if we can just get rid of our egos for a few minutes.

Maybe the "other guy" will get his way. And maybe things will work out great anyway. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you were right.

It's okay to admit that now and then.
.

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The democrook agenda is harmful, deliberately.

You know it.

Well, for what it's worth, I'd guess the other side feels the same way.
.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter right here. Simply citing "the other side" implies agreement that there are in fact two "sides" and that, naturally, one must affiliate with one 'side' or with the other. That in turn enables the false dichotomy the poster above just demonstrated with his fantasy that all (insert label here)s have definite characteristics.

Yet the partisan tribalism you've launched a thread about --- cannot exist without that black/white dichotomy thinking. Therefore, I submit ----- don't even enable it.

Once we start shoving everybody we either agree with or disagree with into a single label, everything rolls downhill.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

It appears, Mac1958, the affliction, if it be that and not sloth, ignorance and/or insipidity, appears to extend to the level of simply not checking the most basic aspects of veracity in (or absent from) statements one is of a mind to make. To wit:

• CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu.
• How JPMorgan Will Spend a Big Chunk of Its Tax Windfall
• How to Negotiate with Tyrannical Regimes

For my part, I don't care how partisan one is of a mind to be, there is, IMO, simply no exculpating that sort of thing, mosty especially not at as basic a level as is illustrated in the post to which I linked.

As I've stated before on this line of discussion, it's clear you are of a mind to accord to partisanship to nature of vitiative absolution given to insanity, that is, to make it a form of insanity, or, in legal parlance, "a disease of the mind." [1] Well, I simply cannot cotton to that proposition because one's choice to be unrelentingly loyal to a political party, thus to exhibit servile partisanship, is a choice one makes. Nobody is born Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. AFAIK, there is no as yet identified and established basis for thinking that one's choosing a party and hewing to it and its leaders happens due to the presence of an epigenetic or physiological "imbalance."

I can somewhat "get with" the notion of equating (psychologically) partisanship with an affliction such as alcoholism, but not with or as a form of insanity. Just as we hold alcoholics accountable for their deeds/words committed/spoken while under the influence of alcohol, so too are partisans rightly held responsible for their deeds/remarks while "under the influence" of their chosen political party.


Notes:

1. American Law Institute's test for insanity (see also: Insanity defense): A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
   
2. An illustrative example of one dimension in which being afflicted by alcohol/alcoholism differs from having a "disease of the mind."
   • In Roberts v. State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated its position on chronic alcoholism as an independent affirmative defense to a murder charge. The defendant, Richard Roberts, had broken into a house and shot to death its inhabitant. During the 24 hours prior to the killing, Roberts had consumed five large glasses of beer, two to four bottles of beer, a pint of brandy and another 16 to 29 drinks containing brandy. To the charges of first degree murder and burglary, Roberts pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty by reason of chronic alcoholism. The trial court found that Roberts was not intoxicated at the time of the shooting and adjudged him guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed and, in dicta, discussed the limited circumstances under which chronic alcoholism might be interposed as a defense to criminal liability.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity, but I have no doubt that it distorts perceptions and thought processes. And it has to be powerful to infect people who are clearly intelligent. We may have had this discussion before, but this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Via intellectual isolation (choosing to expose oneself to only certain inputs, such as external information, similar minds, kindred spirits and internal thoughts) and pure repetition, the mind can be conditioned over time to believe some pretty amazing things. That's the foundation of what I think is at work here.
.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity

Okay.

Are you of the mind that partisanship is operant behavior, resulting as such behavior must, from operant conditioning? If so, what do you propose be the negatively and positively operative stimuli?

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

How, per your research, is "intellectual isolation" distinct from social isolation and "the treacherous trio?"

• Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
  
• Research Guides: Today's News: Separating Fact from Fiction: Filter bubbles & confirmation bias

I remember way back when email was somewhat nascent some friends and I once commented sardonically that "email is the new generation's preferred form of human contact."

• Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Might that research have included Tooby and Cosmides?

"Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true."​