Partisanship is the new Racism

[LoneLaugher]

Well, this has been a fascinating discussion on the psychological / sociological / anthropological elements of partisanship.


.

How would you know?

 

[Mac1958]

The liberal posters on this board have been trying to convince me that:

Being white = racist
Being rich = racist
Being male = racist
Being a student = racist
Being American = racist
Being conservative = racist

No, Mac is trying to tell you that you're a racist.

Then you too, big fella.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal posters on this board have been trying to convince me that:

Being white = racist
Being rich = racist
Being male = racist
Being a student = racist
Being American = racist
Being conservative = racist

No, Mac is trying to tell you that you're a racist.

Then you too, big fella.
.

I didn't say you were right. Your premise is stupid.

Ben Carson is about as partisan as one can get. How does his racism manifest itself?

 

[Mac1958]

The liberal posters on this board have been trying to convince me that:

Being white = racist
Being rich = racist
Being male = racist
Being a student = racist
Being American = racist
Being conservative = racist

No, Mac is trying to tell you that you're a racist.

Then you too, big fella.
.

I didn't say you were right. Your premise is stupid.

Ben Carson is about as partisan as one can get. How does his racism manifest itself?

Holy crap.

You may want to actually read the piece.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

 

[Mac1958]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal posters on this board have been trying to convince me that:

Being white = racist
Being rich = racist
Being male = racist
Being a student = racist
Being American = racist
Being conservative = racist

No, Mac is trying to tell you that you're a racist.

Then you too, big fella.
.

I didn't say you were right. Your premise is stupid.

Ben Carson is about as partisan as one can get. How does his racism manifest itself?

Holy crap.

You may want to actually read the piece.


.

Since the title here is 'Partisanship is the New Racism', why does anyone need to go beyond that. Simple logic

Partisanship is Racism.

Ben Carson is a Partisan.

Therefore, Ben Carson is a Racist.

Again, how does his racism manifest itself?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

 

[Mac1958]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Are you a racist because you opposed the war in Iraq?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

 

[Mac1958]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

Kind of, but I'll take that.

So why are you going drama queen on the "racist" thing?
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

Kind of, but I'll take that.

So why are you going drama queen on the "racist" thing?
.

Because I don't like the analogy.

 

[Mac1958]

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

Kind of, but I'll take that.

So why are you going drama queen on the "racist" thing?
.

Because I don't like the analogy.

No doubt!
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article is just trying to say that many people may support or oppose certain sides of an issues just because most people on their 'team' do so.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." See also, "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."

The piece is saying what is saying:

New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.

The author thinks you're every bit the fascinating psychological study that I do.
.

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

Kind of, but I'll take that.

So why are you going drama queen on the "racist" thing?
.

Like it or not, for better or for worse, our country is locked into a two party system. Of course with minor exceptions.
People find that picking a side is the easiest road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Feel free to cite my racist positions, or, shut up.

"Shut up", on a message board.

Gawd, this place is a hoot.

And you STILL don't understand the piece.

Just fascinating.
.

The piece says that people act and think against their own interests just to be part of a group.

Duh.

Kind of, but I'll take that.

So why are you going drama queen on the "racist" thing?
.

Because I don't like the analogy.

No doubt!
.

Tossing in a racism analogy is too distracting. It's bad enough that people get routinely accused of being racist because they don't agree with Ben Carson.

 

[whitehall]

If partisanship equals racism it must mean that every rational person who takes a side in a political discussion is a freaking racist. What about sports? There are no more partisan fans than football fans. Too bad they don't know they are all racists. The jihad must be hiring amateur psychologists these days.

 

[Mac1958]

If partisanship equals racism it must mean that every rational person who takes a side in a political discussion is a freaking racist. What about sports? There are no more partisan fans than football fans. Too bad they don't know they are all racists. The jihad must be hiring amateur psychologists these days.

I don't think you understand the point of the piece. It's not saying the two are the same. It says there are interesting psychological parallels.
.

 

[whitehall]

The psychological parallel is tailored for liberals since the current political definition of a "partisan" is a republican politician who doesn't go along with democrat policies. Now they can call him/her a racist too.