Your comment reminds me of an HN article that was recently posted: "Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic".
More seriously, your comment screams of tribalism. I think that you will find that most people, across all political aisles, are decent humans who genuinely mean no ill-will towards others. I would be surprised if any political comment posted online has ever changed the mind of someone else. What does change the minds of others, though, is face-to-face, compassionate, honest dialogue.
I think it's possible to change the minds of others through online posting. It has happened to me and I think I've effected change in others. However, all online posts are not equal.
Posts like GP I think are likely to have the opposite effect. Bad faith argument tends to let people dismiss any valid content and reinforce existing views and groups.
I find the key is to be respectful and to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from. This unfornately appears to be a less and less common tactic.
> Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property?
I have been in plenty of arguments about abortion rights, rights of asylum seekers, rights of minorities, etc. The list goes on. A point being partisan doesn't mean it is untrue or necessarily biased to bend the truth.
>The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams.
It is your untrue assessment that anyone criticizing a party like the US Republican party automatically would not criticize their opposition. This assertion - without any context whatsoever here - is pretty tribal in itself.
Those arguments are not property rights. Referring to them as property rights is an intentionally misleading exaggeration. I can't think of how this isn't "biased to bend the truth". Surely not all statements do this, but a lot do. I never made the generalization that the word "necessarily" implies.
I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team. It's not limited to any specific flavor of partisan, and the polarization this engenders has had some significant consequences.
To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions.
>To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions.
I am very confused how you think my comment is in any way an example of this type of line of thinking.
>I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team.
You absolutely did make such an assertion just a comment ago. And the whole discussion here started off through a very vague "all sides are the same" calendar motto. They're obviously not.
Where did I assert that absurd generalization you accuse me of? I use fuzzy language about a specific behavior, and you extrapolate it to a absolute that anyone who might ever say such a thing is incapable of nuance or self-criticism. I never said that. I'm really not sure where you see that at all. Can you clear this up for me?
The behavior of exaggerating a claim to knock it down is not unique to to any flavor of partisan. Just as one might respond to criticism of common sexist male behaviors by crying reverse-sexism, one can respond to a criticism of common tribal behaviors with claims of reverse-tribalism. While the behaviors are ultimately different, the structures of responses to criticism tend to be rather similar.
No one said "all sides" are the same. Just that the political discourse is deteriorating. This is well documented by decades of research. It's actually a lot less likely to happen in systems were more than two sides are allowed to exist at once.
