The Problems with Partisanship (1 Viewer)

[Hooper31]

Lots of good stuff in this article.

I'd like to cut and paste the whole thing, but there are images and other stuff that make formatting hard.

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm disgusted by the narratives that the red and blue tribes throw backand forth at each other too. Kills me that their focus consistently is more about discrediting the other tribe more than objedtively analyzing problems.

Last line in the the article is depressing. I don't know how to fix it either. Maybe sharing well thought out ideas like this with some other people?

Why do you pay attention if it disgusts you so much? Its well known that tribal warfare between political groups is as old as the nation itself. Jefferson vs Adams was a campaign much worse than anything we've seen today. We never could settle the slavery issue peaceably and had to go to war over it. You could go back to the Roman Empire and that was much worse, with each emperor basically acting like a gangster and having his rivals executed until one of his rivals executed him (they sometimes got lucky and had a genuine leader as emperor but it was purely by accident).

Political leadership is always nasty and ugly. I want to know where you ever got it in your head that it was something else? Give me an example where politics wasn't this way?

The only examples I can think of where people were nice to each other was when there was no real power at stake, such as a very local and small election for a post that held very little power or prestige.

Are you saying that I should be okay with this because it was always this way? Or are you saying you would rather I kept my opinion to myself?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You can make up your own mind on issues, but still be partisan because one of the two parties fits your worldview better than the other and empowering one or the other of those parties is how things get done in the United States.

And, as much as people HATE to hear it, those two are your choices. If you vote for the Unicorn Party or take a high-minded stance against the two party system all you're doing (most of the time) is indirectly supporting the party in power.

There are some 3rd party movement exceptions (that will always be coopted by one of the major parties if they draw any real support), but generally they're a waste of time from a real-world, get-things-done perspective. Vote for Ralph Nadar because Al Gore's not pure enough and you get George Bush. Throw your vote to Ross Perot to send a message and you get Bill Clinton.

It's ugly and horrible and a terrible way to do things to be sure. But it's what we've got. IMO pretending otherwise is far more irrational than supporting the party that, generally speaking, comes closest to sharing your world view.

I just don't care if my third party vote swings the election from D to R or R to D. I have no reason to prefer either of the major parties to the other. #### 'em.

 

[Riversco]

Lots of good stuff in this article.

I'd like to cut and paste the whole thing, but there are images and other stuff that make formatting hard.

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm disgusted by the narratives that the red and blue tribes throw backand forth at each other too. Kills me that their focus consistently is more about discrediting the other tribe more than objedtively analyzing problems.

Last line in the the article is depressing. I don't know how to fix it either. Maybe sharing well thought out ideas like this with some other people?

Why do you pay attention if it disgusts you so much? Its well known that tribal warfare between political groups is as old as the nation itself. Jefferson vs Adams was a campaign much worse than anything we've seen today. We never could settle the slavery issue peaceably and had to go to war over it. You could go back to the Roman Empire and that was much worse, with each emperor basically acting like a gangster and having his rivals executed until one of his rivals executed him (they sometimes got lucky and had a genuine leader as emperor but it was purely by accident).

Political leadership is always nasty and ugly. I want to know where you ever got it in your head that it was something else? Give me an example where politics wasn't this way?

The only examples I can think of where people were nice to each other was when there was no real power at stake, such as a very local and small election for a post that held very little power or prestige.

Are you saying that I should be okay with this because it was always this way? Or are you saying you would rather I kept my opinion to myself?

Its like complaining that you can't be in high school again. Its just a fact of life, you are there for a few years then move on.

 

[jon_mx]

Lots of good stuff in this article.

I'd like to cut and paste the whole thing, but there are images and other stuff that make formatting hard.

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm disgusted by the narratives that the red and blue tribes throw backand forth at each other too. Kills me that their focus consistently is more about discrediting the other tribe more than objedtively analyzing problems.

Last line in the the article is depressing. I don't know how to fix it either. Maybe sharing well thought out ideas like this with some other people?

Why do you pay attention if it disgusts you so much? Its well known that tribal warfare between political groups is as old as the nation itself. Jefferson vs Adams was a campaign much worse than anything we've seen today. We never could settle the slavery issue peaceably and had to go to war over it. You could go back to the Roman Empire and that was much worse, with each emperor basically acting like a gangster and having his rivals executed until one of his rivals executed him (they sometimes got lucky and had a genuine leader as emperor but it was purely by accident).

Political leadership is always nasty and ugly. I want to know where you ever got it in your head that it was something else? Give me an example where politics wasn't this way?

The only examples I can think of where people were nice to each other was when there was no real power at stake, such as a very local and small election for a post that held very little power or prestige.

Are you saying that I should be okay with this because it was always this way? Or are you saying you would rather I kept my opinion to myself?

Its like complaining that you can't be in high school again. Its just a fact of life, you are there for a few years then move on.

It is more like complaining why after 6000 years we still act like we are children. Maybe one day humans can have grown up conversations when there are disagreements.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Lots of good stuff in this article.

I'd like to cut and paste the whole thing, but there are images and other stuff that make formatting hard.

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm disgusted by the narratives that the red and blue tribes throw backand forth at each other too. Kills me that their focus consistently is more about discrediting the other tribe more than objedtively analyzing problems.

Last line in the the article is depressing. I don't know how to fix it either. Maybe sharing well thought out ideas like this with some other people?

Why do you pay attention if it disgusts you so much? Its well known that tribal warfare between political groups is as old as the nation itself. Jefferson vs Adams was a campaign much worse than anything we've seen today. We never could settle the slavery issue peaceably and had to go to war over it. You could go back to the Roman Empire and that was much worse, with each emperor basically acting like a gangster and having his rivals executed until one of his rivals executed him (they sometimes got lucky and had a genuine leader as emperor but it was purely by accident).

Political leadership is always nasty and ugly. I want to know where you ever got it in your head that it was something else? Give me an example where politics wasn't this way?

The only examples I can think of where people were nice to each other was when there was no real power at stake, such as a very local and small election for a post that held very little power or prestige.

Are you saying that I should be okay with this because it was always this way? Or are you saying you would rather I kept my opinion to myself?

Its like complaining that you can't be in high school again. Its just a fact of life, you are there for a few years then move on.

You may be picking the wrong person to make that argument to.

 

[Hooper31]

You may be picking the wrong person to make that argument to.

I'm 45 years old and still in high school. I've gone back to school every September since I was 5. Of course this means I just started the 41st Grade.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

 

[Hooper31]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

Fascinating stuff. I found this part the most intetesting.

Iyengar and Westwood also decided to do the resume test for parties. They asked subjects to decide which of several candidates should get a scholarship (subjects were told this was a genuine decision for the university the researchers were affiliated with). Some resumes had photos of black people, others of white people. And some students listed their experience in Young Democrats of America, others in Young Republicans of America.

Once again, discrimination on the basis of party was much stronger than discrimination on the basis of race. The size of the race effect for white people was only 56-44 (and in the reverse of the expected direction); the size of the party effect was about 80-20 for Democrats and 69-31 for Republicans

 

[oso diablo]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

what is "LW"? Referenced in the part where he talks about reddit.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

what is "LW"? Referenced in the part where he talks about reddit.

Was wondering this myself. Google didn't help.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

what is "LW"? Referenced in the part where he talks about reddit.

Less Wrong.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Love his comments about Osama's death vs Thatcher's death. You can go back and read the FFA Thatcher thread for an example.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That guy is a good read. I've been thinking about the point he made about tolerance fairly recently, and he put it in words better than I would have. It figures that Chesterton wrote about the same topic.

 

[roadkill1292]

Going back through the same blog, I like this article a lot, too.

what is "LW"? Referenced in the part where he talks about reddit.

Less Wrong.

What a charmingly humble name for a website that strives for human understanding. They look like people trying hard to understand and educate.

:slinksawaybillmurraystyle:

 

[SacramentoBob]

Man that article on tolerance is long. I can tolerate anything except long articles.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Man that article on tolerance is long. I can tolerate anything except long articles.

:tldrtribe: