NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear this quite often...

"Your argument is partisan bullshit.", "The leak was partisan hackery." etc etc

Exactly what do you hope to achieve my using the word "partisan" in cases such as this?

As I see it, we live in a democracy (no offense to those that don't) in which we are allowed to be divided on issues.
Having a different opinion is a valued thing in our societies, and a different opinion is usually accompanied by having a different vision as well.

People cannot help, nor should they, to see things in a different way. The fact that for example the info on the Al-Jazeera discussion was leaked was not a lie, nor was it bad for society. But still people called it "partisan hackery".

Everyone needs to argue their opinion, and accusing the other side of doing "partisan politics" is not exactly relevant, since everyone is doing it anyways.

So what is so bad about being "partisan"?

"Partisan," at least in my understanding of the word, means that you are enherintly biast against the opposition, and that the person in question is irrational, and thus unfit to make a good arguement because they believe that one way is already the right way.

But then you stop and think about it...we're all partisan.

I think its just a way for people who are backed into a corner, and need an escape route. Like slinging mud a person's eyes your fighting with.

There's nothing wrong with being partisan. But, some peolpe can't take critiscm, and thus need to compensate and rationalize something to themselves so that they think they themselves are still right. So, those accusing people of being partisan, are partisan themselves.

It would be like me saying, "Foofles! Your arguement is foofles!" to someone because I don't agree with them. It means nothing, it just takes up space.

It would be like me saying, "Foofles! Your arguement is foofles!" to someone because I don't agree with them. It means nothing, it just takes up space.
But in a sense it not just happens here...parliamentary debates in some countries (and yes, the one that sticks out is the US) are held that way.
People questioning intelligence about Iraq are partisan, people disagreeing with some new law are partisan, and politicians using legitimate methods of debate (eg filibustering, closed session) are accused of "partisan politics".

Doesn't that just poison the process?

But in a sense it not just happens here...parliamentary debates in some countries (and yes, the one that sticks out is the US) are held that way.
People questioning intelligence about Iraq are partisan, people disagreeing with some new law are partisan, and politicians using legitimate methods of debate (eg filibustering, closed session) are accused of "partisan politics".

Doesn't that just poison the process?

Sure and that's what it's used for. Just one more kind of accusation to silence your opponents, like "unpatriotic", "communist", "fascist" ...

I hear this quite often...

"Your argument is partisan bullshit.", "The leak was partisan hackery." etc etc

...

Everyone needs to argue their opinion, and accusing the other side of doing "partisan politics" is not exactly relevant, since everyone is doing it anyways.

So what is so bad about being "partisan"?

The problem with being partisan is that you didn't think it out for yourself. If someone is being 'partisan', it's because their political party said 'this is true' and without thinking about it, or investigating further, or using their own judgement to dicide if it's likely to be true they say 'yeah, it is true'. Unfortunatly most people are sheep, and this is how they make their desicions. That's why people have to spend so much time accusing others of being 'partisan'. They usually are, of course the person doing the accusing almost always is too.

The sad truth is if you can label someone you can negate their arguements in most people's minds. I debate politics with my manager all the time, and he constantly calls me a liberal and ignores the valid point I just made. Because in his mind anyone who is a liberal can't make a valid arguement. However, I'm for the death penalty, I'm against welfare, I want tougher sentences on people who deserve to be imprisoned (violent criminal). How is any of that 'liberal'. It's not, but that doesn't matter. As long as I'm a 'liberal' I'm wrong and he doesn't have to adjust his thinking in any way.

Doesn't that just poison the process?
Yes, it does. Its because some folk aren't mature enough to have accepted they've lost. And, yes, it does poison the process.

This part is a sidenote, is controversial, and probably not expressed very well, it can be ignored:

You brought up the American filibuster as an example: Some wings of the Democratic party, feel that if they don't stand up now, the Republican's will be able to tear apart the Democratic party from the inside. (Now, I don't have any linkies or anything to prove that, just discussions with Dems) Leaving America with, essentially, a one party system. So, the filibuster, is a sign of standing up against the Republican's. However, the Republican's are also having loyalty troubles, and to turn attention away from that, they call the Dems out on a perfectly legal filibuster.

Some magazines have accused the Republican party wishing to rewrite the American constitution to allow a state religion (not Federal, but like Alabama State). Also, especially neo-cons, wish to "streamline" the system to the point that they could stay in power. Now this is all very, hell its extremly, "iffy," but if the GOP plays their cards right, they will be able to gain a high enough majority to change something major. For example: Bush cabnit urging torture.

Also, with the New Orleans thing: GOP members have proposed the sprinkling of New Orleans refugees across the country. New Orleans contains some of the most loyal Democratic voting areas, thus weaking Democratic power further. And this angers Dems.

But, as of late (and by that I mean since I left the country), the GOP inertia seems to have slowed down. And the Dems are finally making some gains, and getting their spines back. So, maybe all of this "anitneo-con" worring was for nothing. :p

It isn't really a bad thing, its actually a sign that the person who said such a thing was unable to refute whatever you said so they had to resort to the old ad hominem.

...Because in his mind anyone who is a liberal can't make a valid arguement...
Sorry once more, I just can't help it, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) is what "liberal" means, and despite it having become the common use of the word in the US, I have yet to see an explanation why that would make it any more correct...

Sorry once more, I just can't help it, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) is what "liberal" means, and despite it having become the common use of the word in the US, I have yet to see an explanation why that would make it any more correct...

Follow the link on my sig, then try again with a different source if you want your statement to have any validity.

Follow the link on my sig, then try again with a different source if you want your statement to have any validity.
Wiki is unreliable. I got Napoleon saying, "I *censor, this is a family friendly forum* your mom last night, and it was good." I though about it, and possibly he said it to the Czar, but then...no...no, no, no.

By the way, used Wiki once to prove a point, I had 10 minutes to rebuttle something about WWI. It was mostly right, linkied it. Came back from class, decided it was a horrible idea, and then edited my post.

*off topic

Oh come on people...wiki is okay for simple things like this. It's a quick, easy and free way of getting everyone up to speed on a basic level - and when you really get into the nitty-gritty of it, then you can use more reliable sources.

I read that particular wiki-article a while ago (and it may well have changed a little since then) and I found it to be pretty good. It'll do for the time being, but if you want a different one, have a look at this (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/), this (http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/oldwhig4ever/) or this (http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp).

Partisanism isn't itself a bad thing.

Bipartitionism, on the other hand, is where people are forced into picking one of two choices which may not fairly reflect the people's opinion or be the best solution to a given problem. Where you must be either Ally or Enemy to a given cause.

Often, when Americans refer to Partisianism, they do in fact mean Bipartitionism, but due to some very crafty doublethink, fail to recognise that their system embodies Bipartite ideas inherently.

A significant amount of American politics unfairly reflects this idea. You have a proponent and you have an opponent, continuously and without fail. There is no place for the third person to suggest middle-ways and compromise, because they are immediately rejected by both of the other parties. Furthermore, since there are only two platforms, they see each other as direct antagonists, which leads to hostilities and severe diplomatic problems.

Yes, you have a right to be divided. But you must also have the right to be excluded from this division.

Sorry once more, I just can't help it, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) is what "liberal" means, and despite it having become the common use of the word in the US, I have yet to see an explanation why that would make it any more correct...


I'm well aware of what the word liberal means. In the rest of my post I was simply using it the same way he does. In other words, the common modern American venacular. My point stands. Whether the label is a correct fit or not doesn't matter. If you know people think that 'X' is bad, and you call someone 'X' who has one characteristic in common with those who actually deserve that label, for most people you negate anything else they might say. That person is now 'X', and 'X' is bad, so anything that person says is bad and not worth listening to.

My point stands.
I actually agree with your point - it was merely my personal little crusade coming through again. ;)

Neu Leonstein, you do have a point about it being on a basic level thing. But, if we give people an inch (centimeter), they want a mile (click), so I'm just going to have to say I don't think Wiki should be linkied. However, what information on the internet can be proved reliable? I dunno, so I embue you through the power of Buddha, to use Wiki when necessary, but no more!

Neu Leonstein, you do have a point about it being on a basic level thing. But, if we give people an inch (centimeter), they want a mile (click), so I'm just going to have to say I don't think Wiki should be linkied. However, what information on the internet can be proved reliable? I dunno, so I embue you through the power of Buddha, to use Wiki when necessary, but no more!

I'll translate that:

Only use Wiki if you cannot find another source that proves your point. Don't forget to edit the Wiki article so it fits your point of view before you link to it. If both fails, call everyone else a partisan and leave the thread. :D

There is/was a commonly held belief amongst the intellectuals and their donkeys that gave birth to libertarian thought, republic and democratic process - and those who maintain it today - that a certain level of detachment from your subject is necessary in order to beable to form reasonable judgements.

Being partisan means being inextricably linked with the issues at hand, being partisan means not even attempting to distance yourself from this and see a bigger picture, partisan means nepotistic, incestual thought.

Why is being partisan a bad thing? Because, as JFK said, "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

People make themselves their petty affiliations, then act on the basis of that party-allegiance rather than to any actual thought on the subject in hand.



Whilst i'm at it - there is a vast difference between being leftwing and being liberal, point this out to your boss. The only difference between left and right wing is the words they use to justify their removal of an individuals right to self determination. Neither Stalin or Hitler were liberals, heh.

Partisanism isn't itself a bad thing.

Bipartitionism, on the other hand, is where people are forced into picking one of two choices which may not fairly reflect the people's opinion or be the best solution to a given problem. Where you must be either Ally or Enemy to a given cause.

Often, when Americans refer to Partisianism, they do in fact mean Bipartitionism, but due to some very crafty doublethink, fail to recognise that their system embodies Bipartite ideas inherently.

A significant amount of American politics unfairly reflects this idea. You have a proponent and you have an opponent, continuously and without fail. There is no place for the third person to suggest middle-ways and compromise, because they are immediately rejected by both of the other parties. Furthermore, since there are only two platforms, they see each other as direct antagonists, which leads to hostilities and severe diplomatic problems.

Yes, you have a right to be divided. But you must also have the right to be excluded from this division.

No, as I said above being 'partisan' is in and of itself a bad thing, because it means that you didn't think it out yourself. 'Partisan' implicitly, if not explictly, meams you are going along with what you were told. Any intellegent human being should, even if the consider themself to be a card carrying member of their party, disagree with certain things they say. When you are truly being 'partisan', it's because you are saying things, often things that don't make any sense when you think about them, just because that's what the 'party line' is.

On another note... the two party system is a terrible system. It's just like a one-party system, but they say different things to distract you from the fact that they vote almost exactly the same. Here's (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php) a chart of where the presidential candidates in 2004 ranked by voting record on a very extensive politcal chart. You'll notice that Bush and Kerry both fall into the Right/Authoritarian quad, so essentially only 25% of the political spectrum is representerd by the two major parties. No, shit there's never any change for the better. All we get to choose between is dictator and dictator-lite.

I actually agree with your point - it was merely my personal little crusade coming through again. ;)

Oh, then I digress. It annoys me too. While I do consider myself fairly liberal by it's true definition, I'm way out from the way it's used in America. It's hard to describe yourself when the way most people hear the word you would use is in a way that you would feel 'dirty' being thought of.

Being partisan means being inextricably linked with the issues at hand, being partisan means not even attempting to distane yourself from this and see a bigger picture, partisan means nepoitistic, incestual thought.


Not at all. There are many people who are partisans and free thinkers. John Mccain is a partisan who regularly disagrees with his party on issues of human rights and the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman is a democrat partisan who regularly disagrees with his party on issues of free speech and religion. Arnold Schwartzenegger is a partisan who regular disagrees with his party on issues of gay rights and abortion. There are many, many examples, those are a few of the more famous ones. The advantage of being partisan is that because you are associated with a certain party, you can work to change the things you disagree with about your party rather than just complaining about them.


People make themselves their petty affiliations, then act on the basis of that party-allegiance rather than to any actual thought on the subject in hand.

Some do, some do not (see my previous examples). It is that behavior that should be looked down upon, not the fact that the person is partisan.

They are partisan by what definition? You list examples without offering a reason for calling them such.

Even were they reasonably called *partisan, the place from which a person acts in a partisan manner is not any more set in stone than "freethought"

I can be party-loyal on an issue of taxation and a rebel on abortion, this has absolutely no relation to whether i have tendency to think and act in a partisan manner, or not.

As with may words in the english language, partisan has a root meaning and an assumed one - a meaning that has evolved thru the emote attached to it's subject, more often than not.

Partisan in and of itself meant simply belonging to a party, trend of thought, organisation, state. Yet long ago it took up negative connotations.
Nowadays it means just that, the negative aspects of self-righteous loyalty.

Perhaps i'm not answering your question, if so, it's because i'm asking you to ask a question that i understand the point of.

Simply? One can be affiliated to a party and act in a reasonable manner, or one can be affiliated to a party and "tow the party line" a single person can do both on seperate issues, acting, rather than being partisan. Or, you could simply apply your knowledge of people to the argument and realise that people act in one way in one arena and another in another.

They are partisan by what definition? You list examples without offering a reason for calling them such.


According to every relevant definition.
# A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.
adj 1: devoted to a cause or party [syn: partizan] [ant: nonpartisan] 2: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party; "denominational prejudice" [syn: denominational] n 1: a fervent and even militant proponent of something [syn: zealot, drumbeater] 2: an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity [syn: enthusiast, partizan] 3: a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries [syn: partizan]


I can be party-loyal on an issue of taxation and a rebel on abortion, this has absolutely no relation to whether i have tendency to think and act in a partisan manner, or not.

Sure it does. If you are loyal on the things you agree with them on and not loyal on the things you dont....then that is a clear indication that you are a free thinker.

As with may words in the english language, partisan has a root meaning and an assumed one - a meaning that has evolved thru the emote attached to it's subject, more often than not.

So?

Partisan in and of itself meant simply belonging to a party, trend of thought, organisation, state. Yet long ago it took up negative connotations.
Nowadays it means just that, the negative aspects of self-righteous loyalty.


According to who? Every time I have heard it used it has been in the form most commonly accepted and recognized by dictionaries (a fervent supporter of a certain party).


Simply? One can be affiliated to a party and act in a reasonable manner, or one can be affiliated to a party and "tow the party line"


So, you admit a partisan can choose to tow the party line or not. Just because they are fervent supporters of the party does not mean they have to agree with everything the party stands for.

a single person can do both on seperate issues, acting, rather than being partisan. Or, you could simply apply your knowledge of people to the argument and realise that people act in one way in one arena and another in another.

If they disagree with the party in some areas, but agree with them on others, it is a clear indication that they are free thinkers and the party doesnt rule them. The fact that they agree with the party on most other things doesnt imply they blindly follow the party, it implies they chose the party that best represents them although they may not agree on every issue.

So, you admit a partisan can choose to tow the party line or not. Just because they are fervent supporters of the party does not mean they have to agree with everything the party stands for.


By the dictionary definition perhaps. By the common modern American venacular, no. When people throw out the word 'partisan' as an epithet the assumption is that they are not freely thinking but are just spouting the party propaganda that has been fed to them. If you don't think that this is the case with most poeple on most subjects of political discourse, then I can only say that you are naive.

I would consider myself most closely in line with libertarian party, but I wouldn't consider myself a 'partisan' libertarian. I don't believe unregulated predatory capitalism would be a great improvement over the current system, but I agree with most of thier other stances. Therefore I am not 'partisan' in the way that this thread is discussing. Nor are the politicians you pointed out. That's why people think so highly of them. They go along when they agree, and stand-up for themselves when they disagree on major issues.

There's a quote that goes, "If everyone's agreeing, then no one is thinking." If your biggest disagreement with your party is raise taxes only 7% instead of 8%, chances are you didn't think about it you just thought the number sounded too big. You may be 'partisan'. If you defend policies that have obviously failed... If you're just saying what the party leadership told you to say, and using the same excuses they do. You may be 'partisan'.

There's nothing wrong with being a member of a party. However I noticed the word zealot in that definition of partisan. Yeah, if you're a political zealot that's a bad thing. Religious fanatics are described as zealots. If you have as much faith in your political party as a religious fanatic has, then that's definitely a bad thing.

Everybody tosses around Partisan like it's an insult.

Plain and simple, people are just PISSED OFF that you don't agree with them. It's all about ego. People naturally don't want to accept defeat and would rather drag on a bullshit argument with petty insults and very blatant facts ("you're partisan", well of course they are, if they weren't they would probably agree with you on something.)

It's a very aged "You're a stupid doo-doo-head."

It's bad because Partisans disagree with me and I am God.

It's bad because Partisans disagree with me and I am God.
Damn, foiled again.

So what is so bad about being "partisan"?

Being partisan is bad because you're dividing, not uniting. ;)

Damn, foiled again.

No, I think that people throw the "partisan" thing around when they feel that they were ad hominemed (probably not a word) in some way by a post.

If they read the post and think, "Hey, he called me a <Democrat, liberal, Bushevik, Communist, etc.>" then the immediate response is

"you partisan hack"

I hear this quite often...

"Your argument is partisan bullshit.", "The leak was partisan hackery." etc etc

Exactly what do you hope to achieve my using the word "partisan" in cases such as this?

As I see it, we live in a democracy (no offense to those that don't) in which we are allowed to be divided on issues.
Having a different opinion is a valued thing in our societies, and a different opinion is usually accompanied by having a different vision as well.

People cannot help, nor should they, to see things in a different way. The fact that for example the info on the Al-Jazeera discussion was leaked was not a lie, nor was it bad for society. But still people called it "partisan hackery".

Everyone needs to argue their opinion, and accusing the other side of doing "partisan politics" is not exactly relevant, since everyone is doing it anyways.

So what is so bad about being "partisan"?


Because many partisan folks do nothing beyond repeating talking points verbatum.

At that point you have abdicated your intelligence and own critical thought processes in favour of rote repetition of someone elses bullshit which has already been massaged for public consumption - often at the expense of critical details.

Hey, you wanna be a sheep then be a sheep. Just don't sit there and present yourself as someone who really takes the time to understand an issue while you're busy waiting to get fleeced by your shepherd.....

Partisan is meaningless? "doo-doo"?
Far from it, for a person who believes in the value of independent thought, for a person who believes kowtowing and wilful ignorance demeans all of mankind, calling a person or their behaviour partisan is quite a strong matter.


Saying "everyone is doing it" is like saying "everyone has beliefs" or "the moon has green roses growing on it" ...pointless...

"Party"s exist because of common culture, beliefs, goals. Something surprising that people share some beliefs?

Criticising partisanship despite it being widespread - Nepotism is widespread, adultery, drug abuse is widespread, murder, greed, lying, americans - all these 'evil' (:D) things are common, yet should we ignore and accept them for that?

It's my opinion that a person who willingly gives their voice to a cause without or in spite of thought on the subject has abdicated their right to be considered a sentient human being. Wilful ignorance is intellectual death.

Oh and if that wasn't self-righteous :D :p

So what is so bad about being "partisan"?
Because it implies that the person is being wilfully ignorant, or worse, deliberately distorting the facts in order to fit their own opinion.

It implies that the person is unwilling to listen to any other opinion on the issue, or to any facts that conflict with their opinion.

Being partisan is not a virtue.

It's a bad thing because, in political terms, your duty is to the progress of your country not to the progress of your political party. It's wrong to oppose the good ideas of a party other than your own simply because they came from another party.

You are a thinking person, not just one of the party faithful. The whole reason why we have problems in the U.S. is because people expect that if they vote a certain ticket and act in a certain way, they'll be successful. That's utter garbage. The founding fathers wanted you, me and everyone else to go into the voting booth WITH their brain, not just with an elephant or donkey pinned to their shirt.

The U.S. flag has neither the Republican nor Democratic mascots embroidered upon it. You are a citizen of your country, not the Democratic or Republican party.