CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[Mac1958]

you know, Mac... I like you. we have the odd interesting conversation. but let's not pretend you're non-partisan. every time you use the word "regressive" improperly, you're partisan. have a great day hon

You're welcome to review the second line of my sig.

There's a huge difference between being partisan on individual issues, and obediently and blindly following a larger ideology.

You have a great day too, hon.
.

and I don't fall in line with every view of the DNC... you, of all people, should know that.

but disrespectfully misusing a word in a way it's misused by the hacks is a partisan act intended to place the word for the actual policies of the far right and try to make it applicable to the left... like when certain morons start talking about the KKK being a democratic thing (which it probably used to be but hasn't been since 1968)

cheers.

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.
.

 

[gipper]

you know, Mac... I like you. we have the odd interesting conversation. but let's not pretend you're non-partisan. every time you use the word "regressive" improperly, you're partisan. have a great day hon

You're welcome to review the second line of my sig.

There's a huge difference between being partisan on individual issues, and obediently and blindly following a larger ideology.

You have a great day too, hon.
.

and I don't fall in line with every view of the DNC... you, of all people, should know that.

but disrespectfully misusing a word in a way it's misused by the hacks is a partisan act intended to place the word for the actual policies of the far right and try to make it applicable to the left... like when certain morons start talking about the KKK being a democratic thing (which it probably used to be but hasn't been since 1968)

cheers.

Silly Jilly if you think YOU are non-partisan, I beg to differ.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.
.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.
.

 

[sartre play]

I agree that" winning is all that matters" cant find a single news source that just cant help them self's by adding a little spin to every thing. all small & petty things are exploded. mean while behind the scene important things are happening that further put the average working person behind the 8 ball.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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 I say that I have no tolerance for the way that women and gay people are treated in Muslim authoritarian regimes or by individual groups of Muslim believers, do you believe me?

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Or they are the only ones who think about the issues to any degree to make the arguments to start with.

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

And by "in flux", I mean, "The bad muslims scared me so I'm going to vote for Bush even though I think he's an idiot" to "I know Trump is a buffoon, but I'm going to vote to Gary Johnson because emails or something.'

Oh, yeah this is the 7% you totally want to pander to. Because they've put so much thought into this.

As opposed to people who say "impeach Trump now!" but cannot give a solid, constitutional reason for doing so, right?

 

[oldsoul]

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 I say that I have no tolerance for the way that women and gay people are treated in Muslim authoritarian regimes or by individual groups of Muslim believers, do you believe me?

Depends, what are you DOING about it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

There is no limit to the fictions individuals allow themselves to construe as facts. Furthermore, there is no limit to the nature and extent of unsound/uncogent inferences individuals can conceive. While it's very important to be honest/sincere; it's equally important to soundly/cogently assess the world in which one lives.

• Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, and Cogency

 

[LoneLaugher]

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 I say that I have no tolerance for the way that women and gay people are treated in Muslim authoritarian regimes or by individual groups of Muslim believers, do you believe me?

Depends, what are you DOING about it?

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?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

There is no limit to the fictions individuals allow themselves to construe as facts. Furthermore, there is no limit to the nature and extent of unsound/uncogent inferences individuals can conceive. While it's very important to be honest/sincere; it's equally important to soundly/cogently assess the world in which one lives.

• Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, and Cogency

I think it's possible that we lose the ability to soundly/cogently assess the world in which we live, when afflicted with this.

When an individual's perceptions and thought processes are distorted, "reality" changes. So it may not be dishonesty.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

There is no limit to the fictions individuals allow themselves to construe as facts. Furthermore, there is no limit to the nature and extent of unsound/uncogent inferences individuals can conceive. While it's very important to be honest/sincere; it's equally important to soundly/cogently assess the world in which one lives.

• Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, and Cogency

I think it's possible that we lose the ability to soundly/cogently assess the world in which we live, when afflicted with this.

When an individual's perceptions and thought processes are distorted, "reality" changes. So it may not be dishonesty.
.

I think it's possible that we lose the ability to soundly/cogently assess the world in which we live, when afflicted with this.

Perhaps so. If so, "YACO for psychologists," if you will, may well lie around nearly every corner.

 

[task0778]

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.
.

The consistent liberals and consistent conservatives are the ones that vote in the primaries and have a larger voice in determining who represents their political party in the general. Other thing is, the MSM seems to support the more extreme views of either party cuz it sells papers and attracts viewers. Mostly on the Left, but that could be a bias on my part.

 

[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.

 

[JoeB131]

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!"

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Um. No. The Right has been pretty active all along.

What it did was after they realized, "You'll work longer for less money, and like it" wasn't a selling point, they tripled down on the racism, misogyny, homophobia, which is how you get Cleetus the Redneck to sign on to tax cuts for rich people.

And that started with Reagan, not Limbaugh. You could even argue it started with Nixon.

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.

Meh, the right has it's talking points down. The thing is, most of the 45% who vote Republican don't see any benefit from it. They keep doing it when the bank forecloses on their double wide.

But as long as the One Percenters can get them worked up about Abortion or Gay Marriage or Mexicans crossing the border, they'll keep voting against their own economic interests.

he 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.

But in case, they ever do, you'll just pretend you didn't see the arguments you can't answer, like you always do.

To the point, we saw what 'bi-partisanship' gets you. I means you get 50% of the blame for their screwups.

 

[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.

 

[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!"

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.
.