partisan=prejudiced

El_Kabong

i see so many ppl act proud when they admit they are partisan...but isn't this just admiting they are discriminatory and biased? that they are stubborn and pig headed and not willing to work w/ others??

to be partisan means 'a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance'

but no one is right all the time...not me, not you, not anyone. so why would you have this automatic dismissal of ideas just b/c it's the opposite party?? that makes no sense.

unreasoning allegiance? why would one be proud to be that way? how can one be so stupid?

chopitdown

El_Kabong wrote:

i see so many ppl act proud when they admit they are partisan...but isn't this just admiting they are discriminatory and biased? that they are stubborn and pig headed and not willing to work w/ others??

to be partisan means 'a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance'

but no one is right all the time...not me, not you, not anyone. so why would you have this automatic dismissal of ideas just b/c it's the opposite party?? that makes no sense.

unreasoning allegiance? why would one be proud to be that way? how can one be so stupid?

i'll keep this to politics not moral convictions, b/c i think that's what you're getting at.
Politics is about your team winning. It's not about your team leading or helping the people they serve. Or at least that's what politics has morphed in to. I agree that it shows bias, b/c it's human nature we are all biased. I think partisanship becomes bad when it becomes unreasoning allegiance. I don't know where you got that definition but that phrase does scare me (politically) b/c it does indicate that people won't work together.

El_Kabong

chopitdown wrote:

i'll keep this to politics not moral convictions, b/c i think that's what you're getting at.
Politics is about your team winning. It's not about your team leading or helping the people they serve. Or at least that's what politics has morphed in to. I agree that it shows bias, b/c it's human nature we are all biased. I think partisanship becomes bad when it becomes unreasoning allegiance. I don't know where you got that definition but that phrase does scare me (politically) b/c it does indicate that people won't work together.

i got it from the merriam-webster dictionary

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i see so many ppl act proud when they admit they are partisan...but isn't this just admiting they are discriminatory and biased? that they are stubborn and pig headed and not willing to work w/ others??

to be partisan means 'a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance'

but no one is right all the time...not me, not you, not anyone. so why would you have this automatic dismissal of ideas just b/c it's the opposite party?? that makes no sense.

unreasoning allegiance? why would one be proud to be that way? how can one be so stupid?

Your definition stinks, unfortunately. Most people's partisanship is very reasonable because they only care about their "team" winning or the candidate they hate losing. It would only be unreasonable if they actually held principles they were violating in their support for a party. For most partisan people, the party or its simple existence as a viable alternative to their opposition is the principle.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i got it from the merriam-webster dictionary

Well then scratch the first part of my previous statement. Mirriam-Webster's definition stinks.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Your definition stinks, unfortunately. Most people's partisanship is very reasonable because they only care about their "team" winning or the candidate they hate losing. It would only be unreasonable if they actually held principles they were violating in their support for a party. For most partisan people, the party or its simple existence as a viable alternative to their opposition is the principle.

you mean like there being gay republicans when that party is so anti-gay?

there are principles in politics???? ahhhhahahahahahahaha

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

you mean like there being gay republicans when that party is so anti-gay?

Potentially, yes. Or potentially anti-corporate people who vote for Democrats. But if that gay Republican or that anti-corporate Democrat only holds a hatred for Nancy Pelosi or a hatred to George Bush, respectively, as his political principle, their partisanship is not unreasonable at all. Stupid, perhaps. But their actions are completely consistent with their principles.

there are principles in politics????

There are principles in every human endeavor. Some people simply choose to ignore them.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Potentially, yes. Or potentially anti-corporate people who vote for Democrats. But if that gay Republican or that anti-corporate Democrat only holds a hatred for Nancy Pelosi or a hatred to George Bush, respectively, as his political principle, their partisanship is not unreasonable at all. Stupid, perhaps. But their actions are completely consistent with their principles.

but isn't using hate as your basis of deciding unreasonable?? i would think hate would cloud one's reasonable judgement, especially when it goes against your own self interest

farfromglorified wrote:

There are principles in every human endeavor. Some people simply choose to ignore them.

but in the world of politics, american politics, as we know it to be is this the case? perhaps self-serving principles, but no real humane ones.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

but isn't using hate as your basis of deciding unreasonable?? i would think hate would cloud one's reasonable judgement, especially when it goes against your own self interest

Hehe...not necessarily, no. It depends on your desired ends. BTW, you're really close to realizing why partisan bodies keep telling you that your self interests are evil.

Rest assured, using hate as your basis of deciding will not be good for you. But it may certainly be very good for someone else. And if you've been tricked into thinking what's good for someone else will absolutely be good for you, then hate is both a reasonable means and, fittingly, it will also be your delivered end.

but in the world of politics, american politics, as we know it to be is this the case? perhaps self-serving principles, but no real humane ones.

A principle does not have to be humane or self-serving, necessarily. A principle must simply be a base position from which one makes a decision.

Yes, American politics is dominated by post-facto "principles". People make decisions, then come up with "principles" to justify them. What I think you're missing is that real principles still exist behind that process and those real principles are much more sinister than the post-facto justifications.

know1

Everyone is prejudiced.

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

Everyone is prejudiced.

What do you mean by that, specifically?

know1

I mean that everyone has assimilated or assigned attributes to people they haven't met yet (or even things that haven't happened yet) due to their life's experiences.

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

I mean that everyone has assimilated or assigned attributes to people they haven't met yet (or even things that haven't happened yet) due to their life's experiences.

Well, certainly. It's tough to argue with that. However, I think the issue at hand revolves around a person's willingness to be proven wrong in doing so.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having expectations and making generalizations about people, things or situations. But to hold onto those generalizations when they prove incorrect and become harmful or self-defeating is another thing.

Partisanship, or the belief that a collective supercedes the self, is a form a prejudice that can be very much in denial.