Is being an enemy dangerous?

[Conserative Morality]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

[Olivaero]

I think everyone has a bias against one side or the other whether they admit it or not i do agree though that embracing tribalism is dangerous. Even rationalised as being against the party establishment it always seems to overide actual consideration of thoes that belong to the other sides actual positions. Although i very much dislike conservative principles there are some people in the party i get along with.

[Conserative Morality]

I think everyone has a bias against one side or the other whether they admit it or not i do agree though that embracing tribalism is dangerous. Even rationalised as being against the party establishment it always seems to overide actual consideration of thoes that belong to the other sides actual positions. Although i very much dislike conservative principles there are some people in the party i get along with.

It's not about bias in one side or another. It's not about hating people on the other side. It's about, when opposing something, do you naturally move to oppose them on more or all subjects, regardless of whether or not you supported those things previously.

[Alvecia]

I think it's certainly possible.
Seems reasonable to me that when to take a stance on an issue, you gravitate towards sources, figures and communities that share that stance, creating something of a natural echo chamber. Not massive, but enough to nudge.

[Olivaero]

I think everyone has a bias against one side or the other whether they admit it or not i do agree though that embracing tribalism is dangerous. Even rationalised as being against the party establishment it always seems to overide actual consideration of thoes that belong to the other sides actual positions. Although i very much dislike conservative principles there are some people in the party i get along with.

It's not about bias in one side or another. It's not about hating people on the other side. It's about, when opposing something, do you naturally move to oppose them on more or all subjects, regardless of whether or not you supported those things previously.

Well what are we talking about here? Specic policy ideas? Philosophical concepts? Ideologies? Political parties? All ofvthe above?

[Conserative Morality]

Well what are we talking about here? Specic policy ideas? Philosophical concepts? Ideologies? Political parties? All ofvthe above?

All of the above. Does defining oneself in opposition warp your ideas in order to oppose the opposition?

[Liriena]

After twelve years of Kirchnerism, I do think that making your opposition to another ideology or party the primary, defining feature of your ideology is dangerous, and does lead to a tribalistic, toxic attitude that endangers our own values. It can certainly end up changing you on a personal level, and ruining your personal relationships with others.

I think a lot of the vitriol in the political discourse of the West today has a lot to do with this.

[Olivaero]

Well what are we talking about here? Specic policy ideas? Philosophical concepts? Ideologies? Political parties? All ofvthe above?

All of the above. Does defining oneself in opposition warp your ideas in order to oppose the opposition?

I would say it can do but there are levels to it. People arent physical forces and therefore do not move to perfectly oppose things. And some ideas are the oposites of each other so you there is very little warping, generally though i think people seek out ways of defining the world that allow them to think in black and white, being against something at least allows them to define a black.

[Jolet]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

Oh, absolutely. Well, to a degree- the ones running the show (i.e., the party leaders) typically paint the other side in a distinctly negative light. That in and of itself wouldn't be all that bad if they stopped there, but instead they go the extra step to portray themselves as fighting against the evil of the other party- a hero against a great evil, etc etc. That's where things get dangerous and the toxicity forms. Each party leadership knows exactly what they are doing, but they do it anyway because it generates interest and involvement, which translates into cash in their pockets.

Bottom line is, if we weren't so focused on how evil and bad the other side was, we'd probably get a lot more done.

[The Foxes Swamp]

not personally

[The first Galactic Republic]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

No different than defining beliefs based entirely on an ideology or a party.

Think for yourself is not that complicated a message.

[Holocaust Never Happened]

I don't think it's a very good idea to build an identity or a movement on opposition. When that opposed falls, so will the movement or the identity, then you're left with nothing.

[NERVUN]

I think everyone has a bias against one side or the other whether they admit it or not i do agree though that embracing tribalism is dangerous. Even rationalised as being against the party establishment it always seems to overide actual consideration of thoes that belong to the other sides actual positions. Although i very much dislike conservative principles there are some people in the party i get along with.

It's not about bias in one side or another. It's not about hating people on the other side. It's about, when opposing something, do you naturally move to oppose them on more or all subjects, regardless of whether or not you supported those things previously.

Sadly, I will have to answer in the affirmative, and this is on BOTH sides of the US political spectrum. Us or Them mentalities do not good things make.

[Vedilia]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

No different than defining beliefs based entirely on an ideology or a party.

Think for yourself is not that complicated a message.

It's a harder one to execute.

[Vedilia]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

For me it has become so.
I'm not sure how typical I am, so I can't say if this is universal without any sort of qualification; but its' widening appeal can't be ruled out either. Remember the Trumpists and Bernie Bros.

[Lady Scylla]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

If one's particularly impressionable, yes. When I come across people like this, I assume they've an unrealistic romanticism with their ideals to the point that it consumes what identity they had. Critical thinking, and being able to take a step back and analyse your beliefs is a very important skill everyone should learn. At the same time, I don't think people should be unyielding to new information, but it's good to have a natural scepticism even with your own beliefs. I also feel that the desire to be apart of something also plays a large role, and being able to more clearly identify with a group might affect one's perceptions.

I usually assign the above characterisation to anyone on the extremes, right or left. So yes, we do endanger our own values if we throw our ability to reason, which is what I see it as -- a deficit of reason, out the window, especially if it's merely to oppose another group. The larger problem, I feel, is that many see the world in black and white. There's a definite line between the two, and everyone is on one side or another, and that's just not reality.

[Bakery Hill]

It can be. That's why a lot of the time I try to be just a socialist rather than an anti-capitalist.

[Vedilia]

It can be. That's why a lot of the time I try to be just a socialist rather than an anti-capitalist.

I found the other way easier, that way I can more easily slide out of traps aimed at socialists. But then again I want to win all debates by any means necessary.

---

And yeah, it's dangerous, that's why they kept on headshotting me in multiplayer.

[Bakery Hill]

It can be. That's why a lot of the time I try to be just a socialist rather than an anti-capitalist.

I found the other way easier, that way I can more easily slide out of traps aimed at socialists. But then again I want to win all debates by any means necessary.

---

And yeah, it's dangerous, that's why they kept on headshotting me in multiplayer.

Nah I know what you mean. But most of the time I try and keep it about raising consciousness, so I'm fine with yielding points and compromising where it's needed. So long as I open the door to socialism in their mind. Naturally there's times where that's just useless and you've just got to intellectually demolish a reactionary to prove a point hahaha

[The East Marches]

I believe you are correct and it is very dangerous. Even in real life I've seen people become ardent defenders of ideas that they would cry bloody murder at had it come from the other side. Now that the other side opposes it, they love it. It does not bode well for the future if this trend should stick around.

[Bakery Hill]

I believe you are correct and it is very dangerous. Even in real life I've seen people become ardent defenders of ideas that they would cry bloody murder at had it come from the other side. Now that the other side opposes it, they love it. It does not bode well for the future if this trend should stick around.

See Obama; drones etc.

[The East Marches]

I believe you are correct and it is very dangerous. Even in real life I've seen people become ardent defenders of ideas that they would cry bloody murder at had it come from the other side. Now that the other side opposes it, they love it. It does not bode well for the future if this trend should stick around.

See Obama; drones etc.

Yes, the example I was thinking of.

[Parhe]

I know it isn't politics, but look at iOS vs Android or Apple vs Samsung. If one side comes out with a new feature, certain people on the other side jump to attack it as useless and lacking any originality, simply because it was created by the "opposition."

As for politics, your examples are not uncommon and seems to most likely happen to people who see things as black and white or good and evil, naturally seeing themselves as good in most cases.

[Ratateague]

I said something in another thread that got me thinking, do people who define themselves by what they oppose naturally gravitate towards opposition to the entirety of their, well, opposition? Does someone who defines themselves as anti-Democrat or anti-Republican find their views change to oppose the opposition in a tribalistic sense, regardless of their previously firmly held beliefs or principles? Do we endanger our own values and views by defining ourselves primarily by opposition, even if the opposition is abhorrent?

Essentially, is partisan politics more personal than political?

I've noticed for a while that party politics seems to be tied-in with competitive team sports culture. It's unfortunate when people on either side get so entrenched with the notion of winning regardless of the context or scenario, that it effectively dumbs them down to cheerleading and rabid fan behavior. (Unfortunately I've encountered a good amount people who are all "rah rah go team" and never bother to scrutinize their positions.) And much like sports, one tends to be conditioned to back a team via family or region, and to pick the opposing team is taboo. Obviously this applies less if one bothers to examine positions on multiple issues. At which point you start realizing there's more to it than your side having their way all the time. There are sports stats, different playing strategies, championships, draft picks, trading of players, biased referees, cheating, scandals, and just plain enjoying each play as art in motion. Teams and strategies change, as do party loyalties and policies. If someone's all about the team, and the team goes through enough major changes (or bad sportsmanlike behavior and scandals), I would hope that they start to pay attention to what it is they initialy valued about the team and look for such qualities elsewhere, maybe trying to comprehend the nature of the sport. Otherwise one'll be the equivalent of those stereotypical judgemental sports fans you see in the tri-state area, who are quick to pick a fight with a complete jersey-wearing stranger without even getting to know the guy. Not doing anyone any favors and pretty damn pitiful to witness as a reflection of their locale. And speaking as an American, having a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn't help us to escape from this mindset.

[Spiffier]

Yeah, I think that was what monarchists tended to fault about republicanism, it leads to factionism for facionism's sake.