Page 6 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,016

03 Sep 2021, 10:06 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Image

:mrgreen:


That picture might apply, but I'm not the one who keeps using the word to describe every disagreement I've ever had on here. :wink:


Strange the aforementioned seems to be the only one allowed to use the word?
The problem with a hyperpartisan mindset is that it embraces confirmation bias, which eliminates pertinent information that is not in sympathy with a particular ideology/POV.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=399755&start=32
Some type of mind blindness perhaps?

I only wish I was making this up :lol:



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2021, 11:38 pm

cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Image

:mrgreen:


That picture might apply, but I'm not the one who keeps using the word to describe every disagreement I've ever had on here. :wink:


Strange the aforementioned seems to be the only one allowed to use the word?
The problem with a hyperpartisan mindset is that it embraces confirmation bias, which eliminates pertinent information that is not in sympathy with a particular ideology/POV.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=399755&start=32
Some type of mind blindness perhaps?

I only wish I was making this up :lol:


Yes, it is easily spotted, as those with this sort of mindset are incapable of seperating individuals\individual actions from the "party"\"side" they represent, so a critism of an individual's actions (or specific policy) is generally countered by a hyperpartisan through their defence: Either trying to downplay the action\policy being criticised through bringing up other policies\actions by the individual\party under discussion which weren't "bad", or to bring in the "other side" and say that "they are\were worse".

Neither of these approaches addresses the action\policy being discussed in it's own right, instead seeking to "hide" the "bad" from discussion\condemnation. If a person's reflexive responce to critism of "their side"\party is to deflect from the critism through bringing in other actions\groups, rather than acknowledge (or defend) the specific action\policy under discussion, then there is a high likelihood of a hyperpartisan mindset.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,016

03 Sep 2021, 11:56 pm

Brictoria wrote:
If a person's reflexive responce to critism of "their side"\party is to deflect from the critism through bringing in other actions\groups, rather than acknowledge (or defend) the specific action\policy under discussion, then there is a high likelihood of a hyperpartisan mindset.


Very well, lets see how long that lasts shall we. In case it's escaped your eagle eye I am not a card carrying member of any political organisation/party/group.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

04 Sep 2021, 12:42 am

Brictoria wrote:

Yes, it is easily spotted, as those with this sort of mindset are incapable of seperating individuals\individual actions from the "party"\"side" they represent, so a critism of an individual's actions (or specific policy) is generally countered by a hyperpartisan through their defence: Either trying to downplay the action\policy being criticised through bringing up other policies\actions by the individual\party under discussion which weren't "bad", or to bring in the "other side" and say that "they are\were worse".


It becomes tiresome when someone blindly defends a position based on someone else's narrative.
Totally predictable, in this case.
Totally uninteresting and brings nothing to the table to add to enlightenment.
It is cringeworthy. 8O
And it is a waste of my time and mental energy. 8)

If someone has the deliberate intention to *argue*, simply because there is a politically different POV, or they have a personal grudge, then they can find someone else to engage with in this nonsense.
Why you and Dox feed this behaviour pattern is beyond me. :scratch:

Brictoria wrote:
Neither of these approaches addresses the action\policy being discussed in it's own right, instead seeking to "hide" the "bad" from discussion\condemnation. If a person's reflexive responce to critism of "their side"\party is to deflect from the critism through bringing in other actions\groups, rather than acknowledge (or defend) the specific action\policy under discussion, then there is a high likelihood of a hyperpartisan mindset.


There are people who are willing to philosophically grow when it becomes clear their foundation is intellectually unsound.
And then there are those who double down in resisting accepting the Truth of the situation.
Who are they trying to fool?
Those with limited reasoning abilities?
Or is it simply refusing to give ground when the intellectual battle has been lost?
What is the point of that?

What that does is destroy a person's credibility.
It displays a lack of integrity and puts them in a humiliating position, whether they realise it or not.
This sort of behaviour brings to mind the fable of "The Emperor has no clothes".

Quote:
Long ago, a vain emperor was overly concerned about his appearance. Two crafty weavers promised to make him a fine outfit from material that could not be seen by those who were stupid or unfit for their position. When the weavers pretended to display samples, the emperor couldn’t admit he was unable to see them, for that would be an admission of incompetence or stupidity. His courtiers and ministers were likewise unable to admit they saw nothing. When the weavers came with the finished outfit, everyone oohed and aahed. Putting on the imaginary clothes, the emperor paraded outside so the public could admire him and his new attire. Everyone in the crowd, enthralled by the status of the king and bowed by their desire to be seen as clever and fashionable, remained silent. Only a child, innocent of the claims of the weavers, pointed out the obvious: “The emperor has no clothes.”


In this case, the "Emperor" has no logical argument, and yet, his partisan pals maintain the farce. 8)

What does one have to do to convince someone that a position has no logical validity?
How many people does it take?

This reminds me of a joke:
"How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
One, but the light bulb has got to want to change." :mrgreen:

I see no desire for change or personal growth, here.
So why do you and Dox persist in bashing your heads against a brick wall? :wall:

One of the mysteries of the universe. 8)